In one memorable scene, Sylvester Stallone's character discovers that every time he uses profanity, a nearby machine automatically issues a citation. When he needs paper, he casually leans toward the machine and lets loose a string of salty expletives until he's got a neat stack of tickets.
The movie was mediocre, but the vision prescient. We are in fact headed for precisely such a society, where computers instantly identify violators and exact fines, creating a new revenue stream for the enforcer.
It starts out with innovation and experimentation. But the income quickly becomes relied upon and institutionalized.
One common example is the red light camera. If you run a red light at any number of intersections these days, a computerized system takes multiple pictures of the act, reads the license plate, looks you up in the database and sends you a ticket, complete with incontrovertible proof in the form of several photographs. No human need be involved. No witnesses need be present.
People hate them, but the use of red light cameras is easily justified. They save lives and property, reduce costs and increase revenues. Besides, the violators did violate. They had it coming. Only the guilty pay, so it's OK.
If current trends hold, this is how we will slouch toward the Demolition Man society of tomorrow. One transgression at a time will be automated and computerized. Fines will be "harvested" as a matter of course.
A German company called Guardaley IT recently developed technology for tracking down illicit movie downloaders. The software both captures the IP address of the person downloading, and also verifies that the file being downloaded is actually an unauthorized copy of a movie.
A law firm called US Copyright Group was granted permission last year to use the software to identify and sue alleged copyright violators.
The firm is one of several that are spearheading a new way to simultaneously enforce copyrights and collect significant revenue from people who have downloaded movies without paying for them on peer-to-peer (P2P) services like BitTorrent.
Other firms that specialize in mass copyright enforcement lawsuits include the Adult Copyright Company and the Copyright Enforcement Group. Their clients started out as mostly indie film companies, but have recently been dominated by adult movie companies.
The user advocacy group Electronic Frontier Foundation opposes mass copyright infringement lawsuits, saying that the practice "deprives the defendants of fair access to individual justice."
But if the courts continue to allow such suits, it's great news for the companies doing the suing, because it brings in huge revenue, intimidates violators and gains new publicity for older movies. There's really no downside.
There's a growing sense that filmmakers are beginning to look at mass copyright infringement lawsuits as just another revenue-producing distribution channel. Rather than customers paying first and downloading later, the tactic makes downloaders pay for what they have already downloaded.
The approach differs from that employed years ago by the music industry's MPAA, which sought to "make an example" out of seemingly random violators in an effort to change the cultural acceptability of downloading music without paying for it.
The new movie model also wants to scare people away from downloads. But they're also trying to monetize piracy and make real money.
According to the blog TorrentFreak, nearly 100,000 people have been sued for downloading content on peer-to-peer networks like BitTorrent. While many of the cases have been dismissed, some 71 percent are still active. The number of lawsuits file apparently rose dramatically in the last three months of 2010. It's a growth industry.