Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet Your Rights Online News

Infringement 'Detrimental To the Public Health, Safety' 348

Posted by Soulskill
from the just-may-save-your-family's-lives dept.
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has declared that copyright infringement 'substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses and its visitors.' You might laugh, but that means they can close up a property for up to one year for violations of the anti-infringement ordinance [PDF] and the owner can be fined $1,000 for each infringing work produced on site. Not to mention the penalties in the PRO-IP Act, which just sailed through the House."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Infringement 'Detrimental To the Public Health, Safety'

Comments Filter:
  • by MichaelCrawford (610140) on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:18AM (#23346408) Homepage Journal
    ... to make copyright reform a central issue in the US elections?

    I imagine all but a few of the candidates are squarely in the camp of the MPAA/RIAA if they are aware of copyright issues at all.

    But more Americans use filesharing than will vote in the election - or at least I know that more shared files in 2003, when I found the figures, than voted for George Bush in 2000.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:21AM (#23346438)
      Every time you download a file, a child gets AIDS
    • by explosivejared (1186049) <hagan@jared.gmail@com> on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:48AM (#23346578)
      Dude what are you talking about!? The MESSIAH himself, Obama peace be upon his name, is all-knowing and can at the bat of an eyelash bring about such a transformative change that the whole intellectual property system will be at peak efficiency!

      Kidding aside, Obama does speak about reforming the whole intellectual property system (especially patents, which I do realize are different from copyrights and trade marks), albeit with sort of vague language. It's hard to quantify what exactly he means when he talks about reform, but hey at least he realizes something is wrong with the way we're going. Don't take my word for it, though. [barackobama.com]

      I've looked at the other two candidates statements and again find nothing definitive. So I see it breaking down like this. Obama talks about rewriting intellectual property, writes some dream bill, only to have it obliterated in Congress due equally to his lack of commitment and Congress's general distaste for effective legislation. McCain and Clinton would probably be open to reform, but would jump at the chance to think of the children and gravitate towards anything that hurts filing sharing due to the whole child pornography thing.

      In the end, there just aren't enough people that care. Now if we could find some way to relate copyright reform to gasoline prices, we might have a shot. People don't realize how important competent legislation is when it comes to an economy that becomes more dependent on the rapid share of information every day. The legal morass doesn't end with the MPAA and RIAA. We have patent trolls and perpetual litigators making things worse for everyone.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:59AM (#23346638)
        You do realize that in the USA the President is a powerless git that's unable to legislate? He can only approve stuff from Congress or veto it, and even if he vetoes it, Congress still gets a chance to pass it anyway.

        All that "I promise lower taxes, more money, better education, this and that" are all LIES. I don't care if the President is Jesus Christ himself, unless he has Congress to propose legislation he can't approve it.

        Now, if you really want to blame this on somebody, I hear your congressmen takes letters. Mine does, but he ignores them.
        • by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:08AM (#23346676)
          OFC a carismatic democratic president could go to a democratic congress and say "hey how about you suggest this?" and they will say "how high?"

          Now, if you really want to blame this on somebody, I hear your congressmen takes letters. Mine does, but he ignores them.
          The trick is in the subject, I rekon you might be more successful if you address them all "private and confidential from AC.inc, important information regarding campaign finance" either that or "NAKED PICS OF [insert congressmans fetish here] INSIDE"
          • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

            by Alsee (515537)
            OFC a carismatic democratic president could go to a democratic congress and say "hey how about you suggest this?" and they will say "how high?"

            I'm all with you, but getting copyright reform is going to be hard enough without bringing up marijuana reform too.

            -
        • by compro01 (777531)
          i dunno about powerless. i figure that if someone can screw things up with presidential powers, someone else ought to be able to unscrew things up using those powers.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            true but hes only managed to fuck up:
            Iraq & Afganistan
            International respect for America
            The economy ....list goes on

            It was congress that fucked up the privacy, its only congress that can fuck up the laws.

            But hey im not from america so im not 100% sure this is the case?
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by dnwq (910646)
          Uh, no. Ever since Roosevelt the President is expected to lead legislation. New Deal? Great Society? you know. You may as well regard Congress as having the power to introduce additional legislation. The President introduces the big stuff nowadays.
        • by MrMr (219533) on Friday May 09, 2008 @03:44AM (#23347310)
          I hear your congressmen takes letters. Mine does, but he ignores them.

          Because you sign them with 'Anonymous Coward'?

          sorry.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sm62704 (957197)
        Kidding aside, Obama does speak about reforming the whole intellectual property system... It's hard to quantify what exactly he means when he talks about reform

        That scares the hell out of me. Any time a a politican talks about "intellectual pooperty reform" the copyright length is even longer and fair use rights are further eroded.

        I've looked at the other two candidates

        You mean Wayne Allyn Root [lp.org] and Cynthia McKinney [gp.org]? Don't you mean three? The Republicans are running some guy or another, too, you know

        Obama ta
    • by dave1791 (315728) on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:58AM (#23346624)
      Relax. This is the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors. Their constituency pretty much consists of Hollywood.

      The real issue that we face is that IP issues are simply boring to the average voter. Most people don't own patents and don't feel that copyright law affects them in any way. They are much more interested in what J. Wright blabbers on about than about issues that have an effect on the economy; such as IP laws.

      (And yes, I think voters are morons. disclaimer - I've lived in Germany for a few years and have developed the same opinion of the average German voter. It seems that people are just stupid.)

      Your best bet is an advertising campaign to raise awareness of the issues. Until that happens, we are in the wilderness dude.
      • by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:22AM (#23346744)

        (And yes, I think voters are morons. disclaimer - I've lived in Germany for a few years and have developed the same opinion of the average German voter. It seems that people are just stupid.)
        A quick guide to any country
        america: most popular tv news network: FOX [wikipedia.org]
        uk: most popular news paper The sun [wikipedia.org]
        just look up thier most popular news network/paper and you'll realise how fscked you are.
        The problem is that idiots are very easy for big corporations to guide, and while they cant agree on everything, they sure as hell like copyright & IP.
        • They just don't like boring news. You can listen to NPR if you want to take a nap, but it you want something to keep you awake while you're driving, you listen to KFI (my apologies to people who don't live in southern California, I'm sure you know what kind of radio station I'm talking about). It doesn't matter how offensive or stupid it is, as long as it's entertaining.
          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Haeleth (414428)
            Those of us who find offensive and stupid stuff tedious, and enjoy listening to serious and intellectual discussion, may be tempted to disagree with you.
        • Germany: most popular news paper http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild_Zeitung [wikipedia.org]. Not quite as primitive as the Sun but close.

          According to the Wikipedia article their sales are declining, however, so there is still hope for Germany :-)
    • by Admiral Ag (829695) on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:06AM (#23346670)
      We don't have the money to compete with them. But I don't think it matters. I'm guessing that most politicians who take money from organizations like the MPAA understand that trying to stop people from sharing files over the internet is like trying to stop them watching porn, except a lot harder.

      It's been evident for a long time that it can't be stopped. Any attempt to lock stuff down that people don't like immediately produces workarounds. I'd argue the opposite: I think the public interest is served by the availability of information. Whether or not people have to engage in one to one market transactions to fund its creation is a secondary issue. No matter how many times the contrary is repeated, information is not property in the same way that a car is. Making the rules for it the same ignores this obvious fact.

      My guess is that a lot of politicians welcome the money because they know that they'll never be able to do anything about it, so they'll stay cool with the public. Look at how many politicians take money from anti-abortion groups in full knowledge that they can rant and rave about abortion, but the law is unlikely to change.
      • by Tuoqui (1091447) on Friday May 09, 2008 @02:01AM (#23346900) Journal
        Like some dumb legislator said... If intellectual property is property then there should be property tax on it.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sm62704 (957197)
        I'm guessing that most politicians who take money from organizations like the MPAA understand that trying to stop people from sharing files over the internet is like trying to stop them smoking marijuana, except a lot harder.

        So how long have they been trying to get people to stop smoking marijuana now? They haven't given up yet, have they?

        I think the public interest is served by the availability of information.

        Which is why they fight availability of information. In the US, the public interest is always trum
      • by PMBjornerud (947233) on Friday May 09, 2008 @09:39AM (#23349076)

        It's been evident for a long time that it can't be stopped.
        Indeed.

        Intellectual property = information.

        It does not matter how much anyone would like it to be a physical property, be it you or me or the RIAA / MPAA. If it can be represented in a digital form, it is information.

        The purpose of a computer is to copy and transform information.
        The purpose of the Internet is to copy and transform information on a global scale.

        Like it or not, the biggest change in civilization the last 20 years have been about moving digital information. Computers does not differ between types of information, they just move (copy) a huge number of ones and zeros from one place to another. The Internet is basically a colossal copyright infringement machine.

        I worry a lot about "Intellectual Property". I can understand their worried and justified claims on the content industry, but no matter how you twist and turn this it boils down to "controlling information".

        There is no difference between different kinds of information. If intellectual property could be controlled, all information could be controlled. This includes any information any government would declare "illegal".

        If anyone could control who copies a Hollywood blockbuster, they could also control who copies other information that makes the government look bad. Like a video of police brutality or any violation of human rights.

        Controlling information
    • by Xzzy (111297)

      ... to make copyright reform a central issue in the US elections?
      When it's front page news?

      As dismal as the copyright situation is, it's still an issue easily ignored by the majority. There's a hundred things ahead in line that a politician would prefer to earn attention with.
      • There's a hundred things in front of it that are more important. It's not like you'll die if you can't download videos for free. You've got to keep things in perspective.
        • Re:perspective (Score:4, Interesting)

          by penix1 (722987) on Friday May 09, 2008 @06:58AM (#23348156) Homepage

          There's a hundred things in front of it that are more important. It's not like you'll die if you can't download videos for free. You've got to keep things in perspective.


          Let's put things into perspective then....

          The reason you have such a big uproar and draconian "IP" legislation being presented in the first place is because it is the only thing the US has left of its industry. Everything from steal to food production has been outsourced to the maximum extent possible. The dregs that are left behind are the service industries like McDonalds. The only thing in the US bigger than government grant of monopoly is government contracting which is another form of monopoly I won't go into here.

          That's why you see term extensions on the monopoly grant. That's why you see legislation proposing criminal prosecution instead of civil.

          A little off topic but related was the BRAC Commission hearings. I never saw so many congress critters crawl out of the woodwork as I did when they were proposing the closure of military bases. Again, it comes down to the US not having any real industry. Close the bases and watch whole towns dry up. It's the same with "IP".
    • Until you stop voting in lawyers into office, you will see no changes. Lawyers are going to first take care of lawyers. In order to see any changes in the future, we have to vote in people who will support the people. So the way to start this is to vote in anybody who is not a lawyer.
  • This always happens (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:18AM (#23346412)
    All governments become more aristocratic over time. They serve the needs of a smaller and smaller elite few, to the detriment of the greater and greater majority.

    Then the people rebel, and the cycle starts over again.
    • by nihongomanabu (1123631) on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:37AM (#23346508)
      "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson
    • by WaltBusterkeys (1156557) * on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:51AM (#23346596)

      All governments become more aristocratic over time. They serve the needs of a smaller and smaller elite few, to the detriment of the greater and greater majority.
      So the United States was serving a smaller group when women got the vote? When minorities got the vote? And when poll taxes were eliminated?

      While your statement makes for a nice soundbite, it's vastly far from true. There are plenty of countries, including the US, that have extended political power to formerly disenfranchised groups.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jamstar7 (694492)

        All governments become more aristocratic over time. They serve the needs of a smaller and smaller elite few, to the detriment of the greater and greater majority.

        So the United States was serving a smaller group when women got the vote? When minorities got the vote? And when poll taxes were eliminated?

        While your statement makes for a nice soundbite, it's vastly far from true. There are plenty of countries, including the US, that have extended political power to formerly disenfranchised groups.

        Mind if I

        • by WaltBusterkeys (1156557) * on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:20AM (#23346738)
          He claimed that governments ONLY got more elitist. Of course there are some policies that appear to benefit a small group; it doesn't take a genius to see that. But that's a far cry from saying that government ONLY exists to serve a small group and ONLY gets more interested in that group.

          Claiming that government just serves some arbitrary elite makes for great teenage "down with the man!" soundbites, but it doesn't account for the fact that there are movements in both directions. Nor does it account for the fact that a lot of it is a matter of perception: It's easy to view a silent majority that you disagree with as a special interest; it's vastly easier than admitting that democracy works both ways.
      • by RiotingPacifist (1228016) on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:26AM (#23346758)
        Capitalism takes a while to iron out the glitches. We've reached democracy 2.0, we can assure you that these sort of bugs no longer exist.
      • by mrchaotica (681592) * on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:37AM (#23346798)

        So the United States was serving a smaller group when women got the vote? When minorities got the vote? And when poll taxes were eliminated?

        Yes, actually, for several reasons:

        • Making the system more "democratic" pleases the proles, both from the warm fuzzies they get by feeling as if they have a voice, and by enabling to vote themselves bread and circuses.
        • It leads the proles to disregard the elite's authoritarian schemes (E.g., "How can they be power-hungry autocrats when they just gave us sufferage?"). What the proles don't realize is that voting doesn't matter when the elite chooses who gets on the ballot. Voting is an illusion of choice.
        • It dumbs down the political process so that leaders can maintain power via emotional appeal instead of rational debate. That's good for the elite because it means they don't have to defend themselves against outsiders with good ideas.

        Of course, the issue (at least in the case of the U.S) isn't that simple. You also have to consider the effects of the gradual failing of federalism, etc.

        • by Trogre (513942) on Friday May 09, 2008 @02:39AM (#23347056) Homepage
          Voting is an illusion of choice.

          Couldn't agree more. I've been saying that for years, though not quite as elegantly.

          I believe that in this society, the only effective way to vote is with ones wallet.

          Vote wisely.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Wiseman1024 (993899)
          Good post. Universal suffrage is worth little as soon as you realize all that "power to the masses" is reduced to, at the very best, a word shorter than three letters through your life! All democracies evolve to bipartidism, so all you can speak every 3-6 years is a single bit. Even with 6 bit plain Latin characters, all you can speak with your bit-every-4-years is a very short word. How could you possibly call that power?

          Indeed, we live in plutocracies, and the USA is the most blatant example of one, where
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Alsee (515537)
          the elite chooses who gets on the ballot.

          Damn candlyland optimists (* footnote).

          The problem isn't a few powerful evil elites.
          Who do you think chooses who gets on the ballot? The typical general public, in the party primaries. It is reasonably easy for pretty much anyone to get on the primary ballot if they really want to - as Stephen Colbert demonstrated as a gag.

          No, the problem is people.
          People are stupid irrational short sighted selfserving herd animals.
          All of us are stupid irrational short sighted selfse
      • by pembo13 (770295)
        While you may have a point, you choice of example "votes" is a bad choice. People across demographics have serious doubts that their votes really matter, at lease besides for the next American Idol.
      • Vote != power (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday May 09, 2008 @03:02AM (#23347128)
        Just because someone can vote doesn't mean the government serves them.
      • by Jesrad (716567)
        "So the United States was serving a smaller group when women got the vote? When minorities got the vote? And when poll taxes were eliminated?"

        As a matter of fact, yes, mainly because voting is a disservice to the voters.

        Voting has a much longer history than what you call democracy. Kings used to be elected, and so is the Pope. In the USSR they used to vote all the time, too, over a mind-numbinlgy high number of otherwise mundane things - too bad voting and democracy actually have little relationship with ea
    • by Leuf (918654) on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:08AM (#23346686)

      The constitution is supposed to allow us to fix the government without it coming to that, but it doesn't seem to be working. So what changes do we need to make to the constitution to make it work? Not that the congress will allow us a convention to fix it.

      We have a president who doesn't care what the constitution says at all. We have 2 out of 3 presidential candidates who voted to cede the decision to declare war from the congress to the president. How that isn't even an issue still boggles my mind. Even if you thought going into Iraq was a good idea you shouldn't have voted for that bill. But I digress. We're likely going to hand over the presidency to someone who has already proven they can't uphold the constitution.

    • The media, movies, web, just about everything is full of proud Americans banging on about the freedoms enshrined in the constitution, but it seems you guys don't know how to use them. Obvious corrupt crap like this which is precisely what your 2nd amendment is for.

      Now it may seem like I'm trolling here, but stay with me a moment. Your right to bare arms is not there so you can all be badass gangstas, cowboys or teenage psycho-killers. It's so you can remind your governments at all levels that they serve yo

  • That's funny (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:20AM (#23346422)
    I was just about to say that the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors 'substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses and its visitors.'
    • Re:That's funny (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pipingguy (566974) * on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:59AM (#23346636) Homepage

      "copyright infringement...is detrimental to the public health..."

      I don't type "WTF" much, but WTF?

      It looks like Tim Ball was right when he wrote, "For years I wondered what extremists provide to any debate. I've learned it is to define the limits for the majority. By taking extreme positions they cause the majority to say, hold on, now you are going too far.".
  • by statusbar (314703) <jeffk@statusbar.com> on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:31AM (#23346484) Homepage Journal
    How many companies who currently violate the GPL and LGPL can these new laws be used against?

    --jeffk++
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:45AM (#23346558)
      "How many companies who currently violate the GPL and LGPL can these new laws be used against?"

      Exactly Zero.

      Free Software doesn't pay politicians under the table, nor send Paris Hilton to your
      weekend get-togethers. RMS is a poor substitute.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Auckerman (223266)
      The real question I would pose is: After "copyright reform" (which as best as I can tell is "make file-sharing legal"), what prevents people/companies from violating the GPL. After all you gave them a copy of the code, why can't they share with others under terms they see fit.

      I would like to note that the Submitter is "I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property". If that's the case, Mr. Submitter, then the GPL should be thrown out too.
      • Didn't you see the EOM [wikipedia.org]?
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by YttriumOxide (837412)

        The GPL is a license that enforces "copyright" for the explicit purpose of fitting in to the current legal system. Were copyright to be greatly reformed or abolished completely, you're completely right that the GPL would immediately become as worthless as every other license, BUT it also wouldn't be necessary anymore.

        True, the landscape would look very different, and the real "forced openness" that the GPL gives would be gone as well (unless that was framed in the new copyright laws, but I can NEVER imagi

        • by iamhigh (1252742) *
          So why do we have all the "forced openness"? Why make Linksys release the WRT54 code? Is this just a pissing match?
          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            There is no "forced openness". Nobody obliged Linksys to use code that was licensed under the GPL in their products. They could have written the code they needed from scratch and been under no obligation to distribute the source. Having chosen of their own free will however, to use code that is GPLed, they *do* have an obligation to abide by the terms of the GPL.
          • by Dun Malg (230075)

            So why do we have all the "forced openness"? Why make Linksys release the WRT54 code? Is this just a pissing match?
            Well, yeah, that's basically what it is. The GPL is just a way to bugger the system, to cause the proprietary software folks to be hoist by their own petard. If they will use law to restrict access to information, it's perfectly reasonable to turn that law against them, which is what the GPL does.
          • by Alex Belits (437) *
            Linksys would sell me zero routers, as opposed to four, and I would recommend my friends to buy zero their routers instead of three more, if they didn't make it possible for me modify their firmware. I would also buy more their routers if they provided an open source driver for their wireless chipset, because that would let me use Linux 2.6 (as opposed to 2.4 that I have to tolerate, thanks to our Broadcom overlords), thus allowing me support more sophisticated protocols and get rid of the damn PPTP bug, th
      • That's fine! Why? If file sharing becomes legal, then we wouldn't need the GPL anymore because closed-source would cease to be economically feasible anyway.

        • by wellingj (1030460)
          True but you would still need to find the source or decompile it. I'm willing to bet DRM measures would shoot through the roof if copyright went away.
      • Don't characterize the whole field of reformers with the few extremists whom everybody looks down upon. Temporary monopolies will always be welcome as long as they serve a purpose. Changes like extending copyright terms - especially the copyright terms of already-existing works - and increasing the penalties for violations to be many orders of magnitude more severe than the violations themselves perverts the economic rationale for granting the temporary monopolies.

        To generalize, monopolies lead to mono
  • by Anonymous Coward
    FTFA

    Local governments in California and the United States have long had the power to declare property a public nuisance when their owners allow their land to become denizens of drugs, gangs, prostitution and gambling.
    If that is true then they should start the busts at the movie studios, homes of the directors and producers and of course with numerous governmental offices.
  • by Puffy Director Pants (1242492) on Friday May 09, 2008 @12:48AM (#23346572)
    is that copyright infringement cures cancer. And the common cold. And male pattern baldness. Also, it can be used to make any car run on water. Clearly, it's a cover-up.
  • Copywrong (Score:4, Insightful)

    by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:00AM (#23346642) Homepage
    Copyright infrigement is only detrimental to the health and safety of those who abuse copyright in the first place. The common people do not suffer when their neighbor burns a DVD. The local economy is not negatively affected by the "lost sale", because the money not spent on copyrighted materials is more likely to be spent locally on other goods or services, instead of being funneled to out-of-state gluttons.

    As much as I want artists to be fairly compensated, I strongly disagree with the application of copyright law. Litigation never solved anything in this world, it only creates more hatred for one another. It goes against the very purpose of law by promoting and supporting inequality, which is directly detrimental to the health and safety of everyone.
    • You're only looking at this from the consumer end, which is hardly surprising given that this is /.

      But in Los Angeles, as someone else noted, you have the center of the movie industry, and one of the centers of the music industry. If it is correct that the fact that millions of people are distributing tunes and movies for free is depriving the folks in LA County who make music and movies of their income, then, yeah, I'd say there is a big impact on the LA economy. If movie companies and recording companies
      • by TubeSteak (669689)

        You're only looking at this from the consumer end, which is hardly surprising given that this is /.

        But in Los Angeles, as someone else noted, you have the center of the movie industry, and one of the centers of the music industry. If it is correct that the fact that millions of people are distributing tunes and movies for free is depriving the folks in LA County who make music and movies of their income, then, yeah, I'd say there is a big impact on the LA economy.

        Well, if that's the case, then I'm sure the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has independant studies & surveys to backup every one of their specific points.

        Namely that piracy substantially interferes with:

        1. the interest of the public in
        1.a the quality of life
        1.b community peace
        2. lawful commerce in the county
        3. property values
        AND
        4. is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of
        4.a the county's citizens
        4.b its businesses
        4.c its visitors

        OR since "The regulation was crafted at the urg

  • Maybe Not (Score:5, Informative)

    by value_added (719364) on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:08AM (#23346684)
    I think this is meant to address "real" piracy, and not some guy in his basement downloading torrents.

    From the ordinance (note the use of the terms "improperly labelled" and "sell"):

    The revisions would expand the definition of nuisance property to also properties that are used to manufacture and sell recordings and audiovisual works are improperly labeled, as prohibited by California Penal Code Section 653w.

    The revisions would expand the definition of nuisance property to also include properties that are used to manufacture and sell recordings and audiovisual works that are improperly labeled, as prohibited by California Penal Code Section 653w.

    Then again, maybe my reading of it is incorrect. That's not to say laws don't have a funny way of being interpreted and reinterpreted, or used opportunistically by law enforcement. Worst case scenario? Instead of having your car impounded when you find yourself driving down Sunset Boulevard late one Saturday evening looking for blackjack and hookers and meeting up with an undercover officer, you get your car impounded for what's playing on your iPod.
    • Yeah right (Score:3, Insightful)

      by archeopterix (594938)

      I think this is meant to address "real" piracy, and not some guy in his basement downloading torrents.
      As is every single law giving more power to the authorities.

      "It's only for going after terrorists, pedophiles and drug dealers. Common people have nothing to fear. Trust us." Seriously people, why do you keep gobbling on this bullshit?
  • by pembo13 (770295) on Friday May 09, 2008 @01:13AM (#23346704) Homepage

    It scares that there maybe those who actually believe these things they say about "copyright infringement". As if (US) American prisons aren't full enough, I predict the government building new ones for to hold the dam pirates. Colonial attacks against real pirates only barely succeeded, and being a sea fearing pirate takes energy. Copyright infringement takes much less energy.

    And on a side note, could you guys "pirating" via cameras in theatres just stop it? At least out of respect for art in general. There is currently no good way to duplicate a movie via cam, the quality is terrible. If people can't wait for it to come out dvd let them buy a ticket to the nearest theatre.

    • by compro01 (777531)
      cam ripping can produce fairly good results if done with a good (read: pro-sumer or better) cam, a tripod, and an empty theatre, but yes, as a general rule, they suck horribly.
    • by Chrisje (471362)
      I know it's slightly off topic, and I haven't a clue how to moderate something, but would someone please mod the parent up insightful? The statement about the cams is 100% accurate and I would really like that crap to disappear off the net, because it gobbles up everyone's bandwidth and finding out I downed a cammed movie is indeed detrimental to my health.
  • We are talking about California here. Just living in LA will reduce the public's health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, much less piracy.

    Land of the not so free and home of the stupid. I lived in CA for six years, nothing they come up with surprises me a bit.

  • US federal copyright law explicitly preempts state copyright laws. I suspect therefore that this ordinance is invalid. (Cities, counties, etc. are delegated their powers by the state, so the fact that this is a county ordinance not a state law makes no difference, I don't think.) Any lawyers out there want to confirm or deny this?

  • by LuYu (519260) on Friday May 09, 2008 @02:35AM (#23347046) Homepage Journal

    That is okay. Los Angeles is "detrimental to public health [and] safety". This is just another reason to avoid that noxious cesspool.

    It is too bad the PRO-IP act is not confined to a similarly avoidable geographical expanse.

  • by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Friday May 09, 2008 @02:39AM (#23347060)
    The entertainment industry is based on copyright, and LA is dependent on the entertainment industry. It's not really a surprise.
  • This time next year, the LA County Sheriff will be adding "copyright infringers" to the list of kidnappers, rapists, robbers and murderers he's caught over the past year. Seriously though-this seems WAY over the top!

PLUG IT IN!!!

Working...