Reckless behavior

With the enthusiasm of pedaling, I moved off a country road on hot asphalt. From the hillock a charming view of the unfamiliar homestead opened. She was a three-story, but in length stretched to a good hundred meters. The facade was decorated with snow-white columns, and the roof was bristled with television plates and antennas pointing in different directions. Along the perimeter there was a metal fence with barbed wire.

I did not have time to carefully consider this magnificence, as armed people jumped out of the bushes, sneaked me off the bike and tipped my nose into the asphalt. Just a few hours after being arrested by the private security service, I appeared before the court.

“You are accused of illegally copying someone else’s property,” the judge announced.
')
“This is some kind of misunderstanding,” I said hotly. “Your Honor, I am completely innocent.”

- Specify what exactly you are innocent. You claim that the property belongs to you, or ...

- What other property? If you mean the estate ...

- Defendant, I warn you that according to the documents submitted by the claimant, the building is registered as a hunting lodge. Call it a hunting lodge, or I will hold you accountable for slander.

- Well, well, let it be a hunting lodge. Only I do not say anything like that. The estate ... that is, the hunting lodge - it does not belong to me, of course.

“There are no disagreements on the second charge,” the judge nodded in satisfaction. - The defendant does not deny the fact of illegal copying.

- But I did not copy anything! I did not have a single recording device with me, not even a mobile phone.

- Are you blind?

- Would you like to say that on the road hung an announcement to ban shooting? I did not notice anything, unfortunately. The fact is, Your Honor, that I drove onto the asphalt from the primer. And I repeat, I did not have a recording device with me.

- Defendant, do not pretend to be an idiot, otherwise I will remove you from the courtroom and hold a court hearing in your absence. You are accused of visually copying someone else's property. I have no reason not to trust the testimony of witnesses, especially since a minute earlier you yourself mentioned the hunting lodge. Admit, you really looked at him, making an unauthorized recording of images from the optic nerve to the brain.

- I deny! - I was really scared.

- You deny that the signals of the optic nerve are recorded on the brain? - the judge was surprised. - Of course, I can call an expert neurophysiologist, but no one doubts, this is a well-known fact. Be prudent, do not deny the obvious things, and, seeing that I stumbled and fell silent, puzzled, proclaimed. - The court also has no doubts on the first charge: the defendant copied the image of the hunting lodge by transferring his image from the optic nerve to the brain. Since all property rights to the said hunting lodge, including the rights to its visual image, belong to the claimant, you, the defendant, the judge addressed me directly, must compensate for the potential damage from your own illegal actions. The plaintiff estimates it at forty two million five hundred thousand fifteen rubles.

- How much, your honor? - I asked, a little hoarse.

- Forty-two million five hundred thousand fifteen rubles zero-zero kopecks.

- The picture can not be worth it! - I objected, clinging to a straw of hope. - Even if we assume that I illegally copied the image of someone else's estate ... that is, a hunting lodge on the brain, then the only image! I was not going to share it or post it online, let them prove it first! One image can not cost such a huge amount, it is nonsense!

“You're right here, defendant,” the judge agreed, with some even sympathy for my arguments. - The plaintiff estimated the image of the hunting lodge at fifteen rubles. However, treatment for heart attack would have cost the claimant fifteen million four hundred thirty thousand rubles, plus airfare to Geneva, where the clinic where the claimant is used to being treated is located, plus the cost of living for the claimant and his guard, plus a rehabilitation period of seven months required for full recovery of the body. In total, according to the estimates presented, forty-two million five hundred thousand and fifteen rubles are issued.

- The plaintiff got a heart attack? - I was surprised. - And what am I doing with it?

- For your happiness, the plaintiff did not get a heart attack, otherwise, the defendant, you would not get off with a fine. But he could get it under certain circumstances, namely, if he knew about your illegal actions in a timely manner.

“So I have to pay for his failed treatment?”

- Of course. For some reason, no one is surprised at the need to compensate for lost profits - the one that would have been received in the event of alternative developments, but everyone is surprised at the need to compensate for the potential damage that could have been incurred in the case of alternative developments? But isn't the lost profit and potential damage a concept of one semantic row?

“Not sure, Your Honor ...”

“Legislation is sure,” they cut me short.

- Yes, you never know who will drive along the highway and look in the direction of the manor! - I begged, close to a panic. - Well, should the plaintiff get a heart attack on every bicycle or car that passed by and go to Geneva for treatment?

“It follows from the topographic plan presented by the plaintiff that the hunting lodge is not visible from the public highway, it can only be seen from the side branch,” the judge explained condescendingly to my legal naivety. - Thus, the right to copy the plaintiff's hunting lodge to the brain is received by specially invited guests to whom you do not belong. Have you been invited by the plaintiff to visit?

- Of course not! I don't know him at all!

- See, the defendant, you yourself understand everything, why deny the blame? Imagine what a moral shock a claimant could have been if a stranger was found during a visual copy of his property. God knows how you were going to use the information recorded on the brain, the judge shook her head, then announced. - The court is removed for sentencing.

After a couple of minutes, she returned with a filled-in piece of paper and began reading out a patter on it, in a hurry, swallowing words and whole sentences:

- In the name of the Russian Federation ... The court found that the defendant, without having the appropriate permission, copied the image of the hunting lodge belonging to the plaintiff to the brain ... The defendant did not provide convincing explanations ... Based on the foregoing and following the articles ... to recover in favor of the plaintiff forty two million five hundred thousand fifteen rubles zero-zero kopecks ... confiscate in favor of the state of the instrument with which the offense was committed, consisting of:
a) vehicle - bicycle "Eaglet",
b) a means of recording and storing information - the brain with all its accessories.

- The decision comes into force from the moment of its announcement at the court session, - the judge finished reading the verdict and left.

I was pulled out of an iron cage and led to the confiscation of the brain.