One famous costs-pumping Czech-Slovak lawyer Juraj Podkonický used to monopolise the executions of people who did not pay fines for the free rides in Czech municipal vehicles. Many, like one my US friend, who found the lack of upfront ticket payment a trap, free-rode more than once. This is why clever Juraj built his niche. Since the court system, after 5 or more years, instead of googling, was delivering letters to old addresses, many did not know that they were being sued. Juraj’s sin is in claiming his ‘expertise’ in the most efficient way = legal costs per free ride (fine), not per ‘free rider vs transport company’ case. Moneys, off course, disappeared from the accounts at once; municipal transportation companies got their rightful fines, cca 15% of the execution, and Juraj the rest. When he was sued back, he acted surprised since the court letter was delivered to his company, not to his private address. For making the business out of triumpfing over the free riders, he should boil in hell. In Germany [as I know, uniquely in the EU], the lawyers bully people who download from the Net. It is unjust since the total majority of the chased-after are unsuspected, local [the enablers are technology and/or global] and imho oversqueezed by the fines that reflect the German salaries. The loss to the copyright holders is hard to state yet the personal and family tragedies that follow are real. Most of them, chased-after sinners, did not know about the copyright {I would not steal a car but I would download one} and/or did not do the guilty act. Others: family, visitors, hackers, did. The ones who make sharing of the copyrighted art their long term business would not be caught in Germany or elsewhere since they use cloaks. When, 8 years ago, the suing started, one would (had to) go to cinema or buy the CDs in stores and then share them. Internet is only very recently the art's primary source. The copyright holders know this and already made their main profits in cinemas, stores, Netflix and such. [There was/is a ransom part to make up for the creative losses in the price of blank CDs too] Without sharing they would have made more profit, but not really without its German part. A note <<the copyright, like slavery, was not always an accepted norm. It is accepted more or less in the last 2 centuries and in only some [cca half of population] cultures. Only recently it is traded like rights to collect debts. Before that the most profits a great art generated went to the performers and dealers, not the creators.>> There are several legal firm leeching off this environment-circumstance, squeezing anyone [mostly random and unsystematic wifi subscribers] from whose IP the infringement was detected. If the wifi holder [a client of an internet provider] does not react, the moneys are ordered to be deducted from their accounts. Other German legal symbiotic companies offer help to deflect the attacks. What a game of waste. Many Germans are rich and rather pay than face the stress of bullies and courts. Poor Germans [where a thousand euros is never saved] try deflections which means they are being slowly killed by stress [the stress glucocorticoids slashing short memory=learning]. To sue the silly wifi holders of internet copyright infringements is bad karma. One friend was so attacked in 2019 by trainees or minions of Munich lawyer firm Waldorf and Frommer. 3 films [2 Paddingtons and Ready Player One] were detected being downloaded by a torrent at his Vodafone IP wifi within 3 days between 1st and 3rd of Jan 2019. All of those films were already released on Netflix, so their video quality was probably good. This also means that the losses claimed are rather illusionary. Anyhow, the losses were calculated in hundreds, and the total what they want him to pay was cca 3000 Eur. Copy and paste accusations plus the post stamps and profit. This 3 days mishap was split between 2 cases making it 2 letters and more legal gravy/fines. The detection proof presented was funny as the net robot sniffed altogether just 5 minutes of those guilty torrent files being dealt. I think, even with the maximum internet speed, this would not suffice to download or share the whole 3 films properly. The sinners in Germany are being punished on behalf of all international sinners. Sin is supposedly because of struggling artists but in reality this is a war where there is no cash for 99% of artists. It is powered by the US copyright owners, they create the society of this sin. Had the sharing been a local German treat, given the legal gravy/fines situation there would not have been enough local sources to download anything from.. The poor friend did not even have a laptop then; if it had been his family there would have likely been more crime time detected after 3rd of January as the letters come weeks after the crime. The visitors from Czechia, I was one of them, were the culprits.. 3000 fucking euros?@!, it is like a quarter of an apartment in Bilina... Life sucks as deadly traps are everywhere unangemessend, innit... From the macro-anthropocentric point of view, there is the common good of a legal society (lawyers, perpetrators and victims) and the future common good (the common good+ good of 3 more generations). The lawyers deal not only objectively in rules and their obediences but also subjectively in kindness [local] and a (global) evil prevention as is evidenced in most of the constitutions and juries. Automation may help the former yet rather blur the latter. IT makes highly paid data entry professionals and so is rather on an evil side since it slightly blocks caring and/or compassion. The research suggests that this harms the industry, resulting in burnouts and fluctuation. There are lawyers and lawyers, some deal on behalf of the common good, taking into account the nature of cases, and some on the ‘autosqueeze them as you can’ side. Most of them are between. Say in tort cases, after a ‘mishap crime’, the former would look into the case and claim the immediate harms and the latter would rather nudge the client to pump up the emotional, legal and other costs. If there is ambition, usually from a perceived competition, suing a bejeesus out of a perpetrator raises the lawyer’s status and pay. Many non-evil lawyer trainees [cca. 87%] are so corrupted and serve the evil, common bad, side. Some evil feedback loop may developed, like famous 2+ million population in the US private prisons: Law makers and lawyers, corrupted by ambition are nudged to supply the slaves, since more slaves=more profit. A 2nd note: <<slavery is an old norm, only in the last century it uses clever cloaks.. or not, as thousands {incl my grands} who were sincerely used by the Nazis]>>. One can see this is quite easy {populist} and serving a few, harming many more. Does suing on a 1% of global internet help the creators? Not likely, the niche serves to stain the legal trainees and leech off the unlucky, unjust situations of the local rich. What a waste of talent and karma when there are hard and noble cases to attack > The science proved the burning of oil and coal must stop else there will be no nature; no livable future. No future lawyer, culprit or victim will be exempt from weather, collapses and droughts if the addiction to burning in business as usual continues. Yet, even though we know now that it must stop now, there are harmfull, slowing-down short term policies instead of a cold turkey quitting, a long term view approach. The legal attacks should be directed on all who burn, in order to materialise the breaking of addiction to industries. Perhaps the rights to live can be sold [as copywrights] and then a strong collector, holder of these rights can be a worthy client of the lawyers for common good. Majority of good creative people= artists likes/needs culture of benevolence, freedom and sharing. ARTISTS FOR ART SHARING! ARTISTS FOR PIRATING! ARTIST AGAINST COPYRIGHT!
0 Comments
|
Authorbiodive.weebly.com Archives
August 2021
Categories |