Not really. Presumably one of two things happened:
I’m going with number 1, which makes the cinema employees (even bigger) jerks.
Does anyone have a good understanding of why ICE is involved?
The reality is that shifting the burden of defending copyrights from rights holders to tax payers is one of important parts of many recent and coming trade agreements.
The RIAA, MPAA and similar organizations and corporations realized that protecting their copyrights/business models will inevitably be an ongoing and expensive business cost. They also realized that lobbying to get governments to change their countries copyright laws in their favour would expose their true nature and would invite public debate.
Then they realized that trade agreements, in most countries, DO NOT have to be brought to their respective legislatures and so began the great backdoor copyright scam. Organizations/corporation like the RIAA and MPAA to get a preferred and exclusive seats at “trade” negotiations and exclude the very citizens who will inevitably be forced to pay for copyright holders’ own enforcement.
Sadly, too many people are clueless to the real reason for these HUGE trade agreements the world has seen lately. It’s NOT about trade, it’s about carving up the planet into easy-to-swallow, legislative friendly pieces for the global conglomerates to devourer.
Film enthusiasts who legally purchase more media than any other demographic.
Well obviously. If someone steals your bike they probably only have a few hundred bucks worth of merchandise. If someone steals a movie, then by MPAA accounting standards they have stolen a billion dollars worth of cold hard cash.
Libraries are grandfathered in at this point. If they didn’t exist and someone came in today said “Hey, lets have the government build a big media sharing system paid for by the taxpayers and completely free for anyone to use!” he would be laughed at so hard and then unceremoniously dumped in the street.
Our current copyright climate is basically trying to push us back to the days of for-pay libraries.
That’s adorable!
Who gave you the silly idea that libraries are grandfathered in?
HarperCollins to libraries: we will nuke your ebooks after 26 checkouts
No, you need probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is not the standard for arrest. Local law enforcement can only enforce federal law to the extent permitted by state and federal law. Whether it’s a federal felony or not is completely irrelevant, as demonstrated by local attempts at enforcing immigration law without the Fed’s okay. Citizen’s arrests are not legal unless a crime is committed- in other words, you better be sure that the crime was committed. Probable cause does not confer upon ordinary citizens immunity- you have to be right, you’re not entitled to mistakes.
Because the thousands of CCTV cameras already recording your every movement are fine.
Add a big red LED to all of those as well. In fact many of them already have it!
Problem solved. Your welcome.
Many people might want to reconsider going to the movies 9 times out of 10 in the first place, that will actually have a better effect on what movies get made.
Right, probable cause, yes. I couldn’t remember the proper term, forgive me.
And technically, no, the crime doesn’t have to take place, it merely has to be plainly iminent - at least in my local jurisdiction. If you see someone brandishing a gun enter a house shouting things like “I’m gonna kill you!”, you don’t have to wait around until they actually murder someone to perform an arrest.
The crime has to take place for the arrest to be legal. If you were mistaken and there was no crime, you have no defense.
Not true. For example, if you have proper evidence and witnesses, you can stop someone who is obviously drunk or otherwise impaired from operating a motor vehicle. They have not yet committed the DUI, but their attempt and intention to was plain enough.
At least in my local jurisdiction, anyway. Citizen’s arrest varies widely by location.
Fine. Whatever you say. People who take their own legal advice help people like me make a living.
I will cite sources if you really need me to. No need to get testy.
I’m not testy. I’m just happy and satisfied to be right. But this is starting to get to be a peeve of mine: That everybody thinks they’re a damn lawyer. Don’t take it personally, I used to think that way. I am, by the way, completely serious that people who apply a DIY ethos to law are a steady source of business for lawyers.
You’re not paying any attention to context, or even what I’m actually saying. I don’t know what’s so hard about what I’m saying that you feel the need to dance around it. You were wrong, and now you’re throwing in irrelevant hypothetical scenarios (bad hypotheticals, for various reasons) to make yourself right. The law is a technical field, and it’s clear to me that you have fallen into a common trap for geeks who have acquainted themselves with a technical field: Knowing just enough to get yourself in trouble. Here’s a layman-level explanation of citizen’s arrest. If you have some case law I’ve never seen before, or some peculiar statute, by all means show it to me.
By the way, whatever you show me should actually go by the name “citizen’s arrest” because I suspect what you refer to as that, isn’t that. (inigomontoya.jpg)
Umm Piracy is a felony. The guy failed the talking to investigators rule. Which is don’t… Don’t explain, don’t answer questions, don’t do anything just ask Am I being charged? What with? and Am I free to go?.. and keep on asking Am i free to Go?. You can always add the one line “My attorney instructed me never talk to investigators without them pressent, arrest me or get a warrant.”
Note the first thing ice said is his being in the room was voluntary.
I’m “pro” piracy, however it takes magical thinking to believe that someone without cable would not be motivated to purchase cable in order to view those programs (if he could not otherwise obtain them).
Cable is a piece of shit product. A few hundred channels that play already recorded programming at specific times is so fucking stupid and archaic that it defies all reason. The only reason why it still exists is because cable companies and entertainment companies (now one in the same) have a physical and government backed monopoly. Take away the monopoly and the cable TV model would be dead in a year. There is literally no technical reason why every single show isn’t always on demand, and this is clearly superior in every single way for the consumer. The only thing keeping cable’s head above the water is exclusivity agreements and its monopoly.
In the fantasy world where cable companies could prevent all piracy, the number of people that would reattach the cut cord is hilariously small. Cable is losing because it is an expensive piece of shit. They have tried to cover up the hemorrhaging subscription numbers for a long time by bundling Internet and TV for nearly the same price as Internet alone. The idea of 1/3 of a show being commercials and having to be at the TV at a certain time unless you DVR it (why the fuck do I have to DVR it? Just send it down the fucking pipe) so arcane and stupid that it defies all reason.
Cable is hemorrhaging, all of the bullshit they play trying to maintain their monopoly status and locking out competition isn’t going to save them. Piracy isn’t hurting them. Being able to buy TV shows on demand or through all-you-can-eat streaming without going through their overpriced bullshit is what hurts. That piece of shit industry can’t die fast enough.
