RIAA-Backed Warrantless Search Bill In California 208
lordvramir writes "If you run a CD or DVD duplication company and you're based in California, you may soon be subject to warrantless searches in order to 'fight piracy.' California Senate Bill 550, introduced by Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima), has slowly begun making its way through the state legislature as a way to cut down on counterfeit discs, but critics worry that it may open the door to Fourth Amendment violations." This fits in well with other recent moves to neuter the Fourth Amendment.
riaa backs unconstitutional bill... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, the news at 11 should be examining why one would take -persistent- threats less seriously than -new- threats to our freedom. Why does this story elicit a yawn rather than a "THIS IS THE LAST FUCKING STRAW!"
I'm guessing it's because we don't know what to do about it?
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, this is flamingly unconstitutional. The IRS needs a warrant to go onto your real property to get property that they have a tax lien on. G. M. Leasing Corp. v. U. S. 429 U.S. 338. The RIAA's gonna need a warrant too. This is not a hard call.
Re:riaa backs unconstitutional bill... (Score:4, Insightful)
It'll never survive federal court. This is a state official just looking to pocket RIAA money and favors through a bill he know can't survive. It's the same tactic Mitch Daniels of Indiana is using by blocking medicaid/medicare from Planned Parenthood, which is also illegal for him to do.
They do it for press, money, and if they want to seek higher office. But all they are really doing is wasting our time and money on fruitless court battles they can't win.
Re: (Score:2)
The above comment should be modded up.
Does anyone really believe that politicians have sudden urges to propose new bills that pander to wealthy businesses?
Since I happen to know something about how this works, I'll tell you - these bills are not written by the politicians or their staff. Big corporations employ people to write legislation on behalf of pliable politicians.
This bill probably will not pass - today. But it will be tried multiple times, multiple ways. Eventually, a similar bill *will* pass.
Re: (Score:2)
Had enough Change yet?
Change? What change? Everything looks exactly the same as it always has. Just because the left hand blinker has been flashing all this time, the car is still just moseying along straight ahead, obstructing traffic...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (Score:5, Informative)
I thought the Dems were all about personality andshit. Fuck whoever you want in the ass wherever you want using government condems.
So now they want to fuck everyone in the ass with taxes and no warrent searches.
Had enough Change yet?
This is not really a republican or democrat idea but a recent trend of infringement on American's Fourth Amendment. Indiana has recently passed a bill to have warentless searches. If a police officer suspects any "Funny business" of any sort, they can intrude without a warent. This is fine and dandy when an actual crime is happening, but they can do it at any time, and if you resist in Indiana, you can be arrested for impeding an officer's investigation. If you attack an officer while he/she barges in because you are trying to protect your property, you will be charged with Assault of an Officer (which is a federal crime). It has passed in Indiana, and it is has set forth for similar laws in Texas, California, and anyone else. If someone suspects that you are doing something bad or wrong, they can call the cops and infringe on your fourth amendment.
This is a recent bill passed in indy, so it can be overturned if it is taken to to the feds, but hasn't yet.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110518/17015914326/what-4th-amendment-indiana-sheriff-says-random-warrantless-house-to-house-searches-are-okay.shtml [techdirt.com]
Democrats^H^H^H statists back unconst. bill (Score:5, Insightful)
You're right; this is not Democrat vs Republican. It is statist vs libertarian.
If there was EVER any definable difference between Democrat and Republican, it has been gone for a LONG time. To SOME degree there is a remnant of liberal (D) vs conservative (R) difference, but even that is obsolete thinking. It is about the other orthogonal axis. It is about the lure of power vs a willingness to LEAVE THE HELL ALONE. It is about caving in to faceless demonic corporations vs seeing to the rights of the people. It is about tilting at windmills: war on drugs, war on terrorism, war on copyright "infringement."
Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (Score:4, Interesting)
When I heard about that bill my first thought was its time to get violent. That is so fucking outrageous, so blatant, so "fuck you citizens" that I have to believe the only way to save this country is through violence. Supreme Court rulings where you are criminally responsible for any self defense during a SWAT raid on the wrong address, court rulings saying the smell of marijuana is enough to bust down somebody's door, the whole war on drugs, the TSA, prosecuting people taping their traffic stops under wire tapping laws when the government itself performs warrantless wiretaps. They're all ridiculous, they're not getting better, and it doesn't matter who we vote in. Never forget that the citizens are the highest authority, and these disgusting pieces of filth are the real criminals. Kill them before they kill you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Posting anonymously for reasons that should be obvious.
Yes. Too much weed has made you paranoid ;)
Re:Democrats back unconstitutional bill... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
It would take legislation to change this even if it should already be different based on any reasonable reading of the constitution.
By the way, that sheriff is an idiot, the court did not say anything turned up by an illegal search would be admitted, they just said you shouldn't resist. My normal policy is don't argue with cops, argue with judges, so I can see his point. It doesn't really change anything. Look at any no knock mista
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this makes Indiana the 41st state to take this interpretation of the law (it was a state supreme court ruling, not a law passing). 40 others already make it illegal to resist or interfere with a police officer even when they are doing something illegal like kicking in the door without a warrant.
I'd be at the rally in Indy next Wednesday, but the economy is so bad out here in Indiana that I can't afford to take the time off from work. Let alone for political purposes. How's that for living in a p
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't had enough change yet.
I was hoping, and I think with some justification, that Obama would do several things. He would do something to establish that torture was wrong, something more than just saying he wasn't going to condone it. He would get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan. He would re-establish the rule of law in dealing with prisoners. He would cut down on the inane airport security. He would push through a decent first step towards a first-world health care system.
Currently, I think w
What the hell? (Score:2)
WTF...the Supreme court makes a horrible decision with regard to warrant-less searches.
I believe it was Indiana that just made warrantless searches ok, and you can't defend yourself against them...and now this??
Geez...the police state is gathering steam MUCH faster than I'd expected.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a national celebration, rather than international.
What a joke. Is it legal to shoot someone doing a warrantless search? Methinks it should be. If you're going to have guns floating around, might as well put them to good use.
Re: (Score:2)
To be honest, I suspect that it is. If the police don't have a warrant, then how exactly is the home owner to know that it's a search rather than burglary. Any police officer can flash a badge, but without a warrant there's no way of knowing the difference between a legitimate action and one that's criminal in nature.
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Informative)
Just google "cops warrant wrong house" for an endless flood of no-knock warrant stories where cops broke down the door of the wrong house. They often end with an innocent citizen (of course, until convicted, aren't they ALL innocent?) being shot or even killed or with a home owner defending themselves against the home invasion by shooting the police (which never works out well for the victim).
http://www.google.com/search?q=cops+warrant+wrong+house [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Simple. The police will use sufficent force and intimidation to control the situation immediately. A burgler will not.
Warrent? That is not the problem. The problem is meth users. Making and/or distrobuting meth is illegal and most of the people dealing have lots of weapons and cash. They are subject to getting robbed all the time so anyone that comes to the door unexpectedly is assumed to be a robber and is met with deadly force, obviously including the police.
Arizona is a big, big meth state. Well,
Re: (Score:2)
Depends who that someone is. If you're the one having your home or business invaded, then yes, it's almost certainly okay to shoot you. In fact, it has happened before without any discipline of the shooter. Just "part of the job". Even when the warrant was served on the wrong fucking place and person. However, if you're the one being searched and a bunch of armed guys storm into your home in the middle of the night and your initial response is to grab a weapon and defend yourself - you'll probably be killed
Re: (Score:2)
If you and I sign a contract and you violate that contract, can I send the police (or the FBI or other armed squad of gestapo) to exact retribution on you?
Depends on if you have as much money and political influence (same thing, really) as the RIAA does.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this international kill the 4th amendment week in the US???
Nothing international about it; this is a domestic effort.
Geez...the police state is gathering steam MUCH faster than I'd expected.
Really? It was not all that long ago that the secret service was trying to imprison people who merely possessed a copy of the BellSouth E911 document. During that same period of the time, the Justice Department was trying to sneak back doors into cryptography products (clipper chip), something that they are still pushing for to this day:
http://www.justice.gov/criminal/cybercrime/crypto.html [justice.gov]
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Indiana Supreme Court wrote "We believe however that a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence."
It is abundantly clear that modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence is incompatible with the Fourth Amendment.
Re: (Score:3)
You have a right to protection from unlawful entry, not the right to "resist". IE - No, you can't aim a gun at police, shove them out, or punch them in the face. What you do have the right to do is sue them in court. And they, no you, will determine what is lawful and what is unlawful as far as the entry.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is another way of saying we have no protection against unlawful entry at all. This is clearly not what was intended by the 4th amendment.
Well underway (Score:2)
Protests are *already* threats to national security.
Remember Dubya's "free speech zones" that were a mile or more from where he was giving a speech, and the protesters were herded into these areas, nowhere near the media or the president?
Or how the FBI infiltrates even the most innocuous groups that band together to discuss freedoms, rights, and how badly run the government is?
And it doesn't matter which "team" they are playing for, all politicians are about power and money. They are all in the pockets of b
Re: (Score:2)
Is Obama continuing these same free speech zones wherever he speaks?
Re: (Score:2)
Why not? I believe they were started under Reagan. Certainly they were there under Clinton.
Re: (Score:2)
Why mention just Bush? The DNC had some real nice ones that were essentially cages made from chainlink.
Expect a lot of them at the upcoming election.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where is this list of politicians who don't feel that their constituency is just a power pool to fuel their own personal selfish motivations and goals?
Also, where is the statement in the Constitution that says rights are granted by this "God" fellow? The closest I'm aware of is all men being created equal, endowed by their creator (where creator is clearly intentionally open and vague to be interpreted by each individual as is appropriate to them - including sensibly metaphorically).
Also, it is false to say
Re:What the hell? (Score:5, Insightful)
Quoting from the inset document in one of the articles, "In the 1920s, legal scholarship began criticizing the right [to resist unlawful entry by a police officer] as valuing individual liberty over physical security of the officers."
At what point in the history of the United States did "legal scholarship" become an authoritative source of law capable of destroying inherent natural rights not granted by the US Constitution but specifically called out as examples of existing rights such as those expressed in the 4th amendment such as "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures..." To say that there is no right to resist an unlawful entry (and arrest) because there are now "after the fact" remedies available that may not have been available to those in the 18th century misses the point that unlawful entry and arrest can be just as effectively used to suppress and intimidate now as it was then. Exercising remedies to get out of jail after an unlawful arrest takes time and money, time spent in jail and fighting an unlawful arrest takes away from time required to earn a living (try missing 2 weeks of work and income - see what happens to your bills and your job), and the stain of the arrest may take a long time to fade, if in fact it ever does.
Without *some* possibility of a negative consequence to an unlawful entry and/or arrest, what is left to hold police back from engaging in whatever related conduct they so choose, so long as they know that their superior officers (who aren't elected officials) won't hold them at fault or punish them?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a difference between the corporations and the American regime any more?
Because what could be more important... (Score:5, Informative)
than suppressing music and movie piracy? Those individual rights ideas in the constitution that we inherited from the Magna Carta just make that soooooo... difficult.
Excuse me, I have to go wipe up some of that sarcasm that's dripping on the floor here.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Arrrrrhhh. Ye may have a point, matey!
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not the most controversial part of the bill, though. SB550 also has provisions that would allow law enforcement to begin inspecting disc replication plants without a warrant in order to verify that they're complying with the law. These inspections must take place during regular business hours, but if officers find equipment that they suspect is being used for non-legit purposes, it can be seized.
I wonder how the summary somehow left out that these warrentless searches are of commercial disc replication plants.
I would assume that all commercial buildings are subject to warrentless searches to enforce various safety and workplace laws...
Anyway, I don't support any degradation of the 4th amendment, but I don't appreciate the deceptive manipulation of large numbers of people who can be counted on to not read the fucking article either.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the most controversial part of the bill, though. SB550 also has provisions that would allow law enforcement to begin inspecting disc replication plants without a warrant in order to verify that they're complying with the law. These inspections must take place during regular business hours, but if officers find equipment that they suspect is being used for non-legit purposes, it can be seized.
I wonder how the summary somehow left out that these warrentless searches are of commercial disc replication plants.
I would assume that all commercial buildings are subject to warrentless searches to enforce various safety and workplace laws...
Anyway, I don't support any degradation of the 4th amendment, but I don't appreciate the deceptive manipulation of large numbers of people who can be counted on to not read the fucking article either.
Yeah, I was wondering about that too. There are certainly cases where government representatives can conduct unannounced inspections (OSHA, fire marshal, etc.), but in all the cases I know of those are safety-related inspections. There isn't a safety issue at all here, they just want to be able to check and make sure that the unique codes that are apparently required for all media (first I've heard of this...) are actually being imprinted on the media.
Not as evil as the summary/article portrays (it doesn't
That's just it - safety and workplace laws (Score:5, Insightful)
I would assume that all commercial buildings are subject to warrentless searches to enforce various safety and workplace laws...
But that's just it - there are exceptions to warrantless searches on grounds such as public safety and worker safety... e.g., health inspections, nursing home inspections, OSHA compliance, etc.
Extending those kinds of warrantless searches to look for potential copyright infringement is not in the same vein. Where is the pressing public necessity that justifies the encroachment on the 4th Amendment? To me, it just sounds like the copyright industries want the taxpayer-funded police to act as their own private security force. What if every industry took that approach? Why not have warrantless searches of research labs in order to make sure there is no patent infringement going on?
Re: (Score:2)
If they're gonna make it legal to just search a business, I want them to start with the offices of execs in the financial industry. While they're at it, they should install taps on the phones and start monitoring them as well.
Re: (Score:3)
I really doubt that this is the first non-safely related law that has ever been enforce by the police on local business without warrents.
code enforcement [wikipedia.org] is nothing new, and it covers ordinary laws as well as safety.
I hate to see the government doing the RIAA's bidding as much as the next guy, but is this really any different than what the law has been for the last 60+ years? Give me a break.
There is nothing new from a civil liberties standpoint about this law. I don't particularly like this law or anything
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's just it - there are exceptions to warrantless searches on grounds such as public safety and worker safety... e.g., health inspections, nursing home inspections, OSHA compliance, etc.
Actually, no, the Supreme Court has held that a warrant is required for an OSHA inspection. Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc. [google.com], 436 US 307 (1978). Warrantless inspections require special circumstances, and the Occupational Safety and Health Act's jurisdiction was simply too broad.
Re: (Score:2)
The BATF can inspect at any time for compliance to laws and regulations, http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-ffl-compliance.html [atf.gov]. They are not looking for safety issues and do not need a warrant.
Re:That's just it - safety and workplace laws (Score:4, Insightful)
*shrugs* It's just part of California's grand plan to send more DVD fabrication jobs to China. Heck, it's not like much of the commercial piracy is being done in the U.S. anyway.
Re:Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (Score:5, Informative)
You would assume wrong. Warrants are required to enter commercial property, including workplaces. This applies to OSHA, fire inspections, etc., and has been tested in federal court (Marshall v. Barlow’s, Inc). There are cases where a business must subject itself to an inspection in order to qualify for a license or other certification. But that's the business owner requesting an inspection, not the government demanding one, and a failure to allow the inspection results in a failure to issue the license, not in a mandatory inspection or seizure of property. It works just like electrical inspections in your home -- when you have new work done, you must request an inspection, and a failure to pass an inspection might lead to your property being condemned, but at no point in the process are you required to submit to a search/inspection, and you if you choose to allow one you can prepare for it and limit the scope of the inspection to the relevant portions of your home.
If law enforcement has probable cause to believe that a business is participating in copyright infringement that can *already* get a warrant. No new law is needed to authorize that action. This law would mean that they don't need probable cause and can just come in and hassle legitimate business owners while threatening to seize the equipment necessary for their day-to-day operations, which doesn't sound much like justice to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry but Marshall Vs Barlow only deals with OSHA . Read the last paragraph:
"The decision today renders presumptively invalid numerous inspection provisions in federal regulatory statutes. E. g., 30 U. S. C. 813 (Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969); 30 U. S. C. 723, 724 (Federal Metal and Nonmetallic Mine Safety Act); 21 U. S. C. 603 (inspection of meat and food products). That some of these provisions apply only to a single industry, as noted above, does not alter this fact. And the fact th
Re: (Score:3)
I wonder how the summary somehow left out that these warrentless searches are of commercial disc replication plants.
The first line of the summary is.
If you run a CD or DVD duplication company
Just sayin'
Re: (Score:3)
[but ... but ...] The first line of the summary is "If you run a CD or DVD duplication company"
Don't go getting all secure feeling there, friend. Do you ever slam out a DVD and hand it to a friend? Guess what. That could be held to be a sole proprietorship providing service in exchange for undefined consideration. Does the friend ever ... gasp ... give you a different DVD back? Maybe you're engaging in ... shudder ... barter. The IRS thinks barter is taxable. And what the IRS thinks, goes. They are also pretty much given a free rein to do whatever they want to seize your resources.
Re: (Score:2)
Plus, once they get a foothold against CD/DVD duplication companies, don't think that the RIAA, MPAA or even the BSA won't call for the law to be expanded to other types of businesses. And once that's well established, how long until homes are fair game?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't worry too much. Companies are leaving California pretty fast. This is just another reason to leave. If there are no commercial duplication companies in California, there won't be any warrentless searches.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you know that CDs and DVDs have chemicals in them? That's right, they are made with CHEMICALS. Well, some of those a certainly known to cause cancer in large enough quantities. So any business using CDs and DVDs has to post a Prop. 65 sign.
You know, the ones that say if you go in here that you are going to die and the State of California knows it. Heck, I can't think if a better way to keep people out of an office or a store. I have been thinking of posting one of those to discourage solicitors eve
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how the summary somehow left out that these warrentless searches are of commercial disc replication plants.
Haven't we seen all these rights given somehow used in the wrong contexts? Such as the spying of people by government officers for petty reasons?
Re: (Score:2)
The problem here, and by extension the problem with all MAFIAA activity, is that they are misusing publicly funded law enforcement resources to push a corporate, profit-driven agenda.
Murder, larceny, rape. These are criminal offenses.
Copyright infringement is a CIVIL issue. The police has no business mediating such affairs. If the RIAA wants to fight the fight, they must do so using civil courts. Law enforcement officials have better things to worry about, like all the murder, larceny, and rape going on
Re: (Score:3)
Be sure to read the second referenced article about the Indiana Supreme Court decision before condemning those folks protesting most vociferously at the legal jurisprudence here. SB 550 may be warrantless searches of commercial facilities, but the Indiana decision is all about you and your home.
I'm also surprised that people might be in favor of permitting police to inspect the disc replication plants even if they are commercial businesses. A business premise is private property and the property owner ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
why does being a "company" suddenly make it ok to break the 4th amendment? all companies are owned by one or more individuals, so it is still private property
Oligarchy, here we come ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Once you reach the point where the police forces are there to enforce the rights and whims of corporations, you might as well accept the fact that you're no longer a democracy.
A lot of these things used to be civil law, but now all of a sudden we're using tax-payer funded agencies to police on behalf of copyright holders.
If people were astonished to realize that the FBI spends most of its cybercrime resources of child pornography ... wait until traditional police forces and government agencies are spending
Re: (Score:2)
"Once you reach the point where the police forces are there to enforce the rights and whims of corporations, you might as well accept the fact that you're no longer a democracy."
Once you reach that point, you can understand why Timothy McVeigh and Joe Stack did what they did.
There is no hope for peaceful change, so the government had better start buying off as many citizens as it can.
The Tea Party folks are partially right. We should destroy government LEGALLY by taking away its funding.
This is one of the few that is legal and 'right' (Score:2)
Businesses are not people, they don't have any rights against warrantless search.
This is one of the few times on this type of issue where the government isn't overreaching and violating the constitution.
We also already have inspections of other industrys for illegal practices (food industrys, chemical industrys, etc.) So why should replication businesses have any special status.
Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (Score:4, Insightful)
Businesses are not people, they don't have any rights against warrantless search.
This is one of the few times on this type of issue where the government isn't overreaching and violating the constitution.
We also already have inspections of other industrys for illegal practices (food industrys, chemical industrys, etc.) So why should replication businesses have any special status.
Because illegal practices in those other industries can lead to mass death and loss of life. Tainted food could kill consumers, unsafe chemical plants can explode and leave a city sized crater.
Who dies if the copyright cops have to wait to get a warrant as opposed to not getting one?
Re: (Score:2)
Kittens, and corporate profits.
You don't want to kill kittens, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (Score:5, Informative)
Businesses are not people, they don't have any rights against warrantless search.
This is completely false. "The Court long has recognized that the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is applicable to commercial premises, as well as to private homes. An owner or operator of a business thus has an expectation of privacy in commercial property, which society is prepared to consider to be reasonable." New York v. Burger, 482 US 691, 699 (1987).
Re: (Score:2)
This is clearly a job for ... (Score:2)
Ninja Stallman! [xkcd.com]
But seriously, if this passes and is enforced, then we might as well accept that we're now a fascist state according to Mussolini's definition of it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ya think? You're catching on.
Maybe Constitutional, Maybe Not (Score:5, Informative)
For decades the Supreme Court has recognized the constitutionality of warrantless administrative inspections of closely regulated businesses with a long tradition of close government supervision. "Certain industries have such a history of government oversight that no reasonable expectation of privacy could exist for a proprietor over the stock of such an enterprise." Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S. 307, 313 (1978). This has come to be called the Colonnade-Biswell doctrine, after the cases of Colonnade Corp. v. United States and United States v. Biswell. Industries in which warrantless searches have been approved include pawn shops that sell firearms (the Biswell case), liquor stores (the Colonnade case), quarries, and automobile junkyards.
However, even if warrantless searches of CD duplication businesses are allowable as a threshold matter, there are still three important limits on those searches. First, there must be a substantial government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made. Second, the warrantless inspections must be necessary to further the regulatory scheme. Third, the statute's inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, must provide a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant. In other words, the regulatory statute must perform the two basic functions of a warrant: it must advise the owner of the commercial premises that the search is being made pursuant to the law and has a properly defined scope, and it must limit the discretion of the inspecting officers. See New York v. Burger, 482 US 691, 702-03 (1987).
Here, it's not clear to me that CD duplication businesses are closely regulated businesses with a tradition of close government supervision. It's possible that the copyright laws (particularly the criminal copyright laws) amount to such regulation, but in my opinion it would be a close case. In most cases there is some kind of government licensing regime, and I don't think a license is required to operate a CD duplicating business. But it's important to note the limits on those searches that would still be in place even if they are allowed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we get random inspections of licensed securities firms? Please?
Re:Maybe Constitutional, Maybe Not (Score:5, Insightful)
My purpose was to inform people about the law as it is, not to argue what the law should be or curse the Court for making the law what it is. Polemics don't help anybody understand whether this law is likely to be upheld or not.
So what exactly is it going to take (Score:2)
"Stand up for my rights? I'd rather sit down and watch American Idol."
Re: (Score:2)
Let's just say, I wouldn't hold my breath. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voters. There's a sucker born every minute.
Eh? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not worth the effort to steal them because the thief thinks your taste blows.
And because they can get all the free music they want from other thieves.
The fact that the stuff is widely bootlegged doesn't make it right for you to justify changing the law to fuck the people who make the music out of their pay.
So how long will it be... (Score:2)
...before people finally figure out that their basic civil liberties are being eroded? Why are there not marches on Washington over things like this? Has America become so lazy, stupid, and nonchalant that we are going to let this happen? I live in NY, and work with the police everyday at my job. If they tried to come into my house without a warrant, I sure as hell wouldn't let that happen. And I sure as hell wouldn't let it be ok and just go about my business like nothing wrong just happened if they did so
FUD (Score:2)
Does a health inspector need a warrant to search a restaurant or food plant?
Does a BATF inspector need a warrant to search a distillery?
Does a safety inspector need a warrant to search a manufacturing plant?
In all these cases the answer is no. They can freely inspect commercial establishments to ensure the companies are following the law.
Equating this to random searches of houses is FUD. A random search of a private residence is against the Fourth Amendment. The statement by a couple of Sheriffs in Indiana,
Re: (Score:2)
You put (an illegal act) a couple of items late. Otherwise I agree.
The ruling is very narrow. The police had probable cause and observed crime in progress. Not being able to see it doesn't negate the fact that they smelled and heard it. As a precedent, this one is probably moot.
Re: (Score:2)
Does a health inspector need a warrant to search a restaurant or food plant?
Does a BATF inspector need a warrant to search a distillery?
Does a safety inspector need a warrant to search a manufacturing plant?
In all these cases the answer is no. They can freely inspect commercial establishments to ensure the companies are following the law.
Equating this to random searches of houses is FUD.
Actually, restaurants and distilleries receive licenses from the government to operate and part of the license agreement allows for inspections. Federal law allows OSHA to come inspect a manufacturing plant. However, the police cannot come and do the same without a warrant.
Now if the duplication of the disks falls under the hazards that OSHA is responsible for protecting workers against, then OSHA can inspect without a warrant, but no else can.
Just like when your new house is being built, the building ins
Re: (Score:2)
In all these cases the commercial entity applied for a license to operate where they probably gave these agencies permission to inspect the premises. I need not a license t
Solved it all, huh? (Score:2)
It's so nice to see that California has solved its multi billion dollar budget shortfall and has plenty of time to craft bullshit legislation that is obviously a gimme to the MPAA/RIAA drones that are stuffing their pockets with cash.
Schools are funded, everyone has a job, housing market is stable, health care system is awesome. Right? Nope. But hey, we need to allow no-knock warrants where someone might be committing the heinous act of burning a bunch of DVDs. Clearly that is worthy of felony charges and h
Waiting for the other shoe (Score:2)
Schools are funded, everyone has a job, housing market is stable, health care system is awesome. Right? Nope. But hey, we need to allow no-knock warrants where someone might be committing the heinous act of burning a bunch of DVDs. Clearly that is worthy of felony charges and huge fines. The MPAA & RIAA sure think so.
Of course. From their viewpoint, CD and DVD copying caused the economic collapse.
I wouldn't even be surprised to hear them assert that over their members' media outlets any minute now.
Avoidance (Score:2)
I guess the people that sell that stuff will have to have it made at a location not traceable to them. Folly rules!
Fascists like fascism (Score:2)
Fascists like fascism. Film at 11. SCOTUS ruling against it at 12, revolution at 1 AM if the SCOTUS refuses to rule against something that's unconstitutional by inspection.
Really though, revolution some time in the late 90s. The *IAA have already been lined up against the wall and shot. This is just the action of a twitching corpse. It's the corpse of a raptor mind you, so mind the slashing tail; but it's still a corpse.
Not a 4th amendment issue (Score:3)
If they truly want to crack down on illegal duplication of CDs and DVDs, they need to look at South East Asia, not South Central LA. Of course that would make it a State Department issue and not a 4th amendment issue, as California doesn't have any jurisdiction over other countries.
Huh? (Score:2)
as a way to cut down on counterfeit discs
No your honor, the disks are genuine. I bought them at Office Depot, and here's the receipt.
I think the idea is more geared at what's on the disks, not the disks themselves.
Do I smell pot? (Score:2)
(whispers... police here....)
Ok boys, break the door down....
small translation (Score:2)
in other words: "any equipment, period."
Re: (Score:3)
That tends to be how that works. Unfortunately the people voting on those bills have forgotten that they're supposed to be voting in good faith about the legislation, not counting on the courts to overturn unconstitutional legislation. In recent years the courts have taken a disturbingly deferential view on their jobs. Largely because of all the right wing nut jobs screaming their heads off whenever SCOTUS or the judicial branch in general overturns a law that they like.
Which would be comical if it didn't m
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that there are a lot of people out there that think this is an appropriate use of governmental power, and will be more likely to vote for the politicians who support it. Ultimately, there is no protection available that can protect us from ourselves in a democratic society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't a 300GB SATA drive cheaper than 400 CD's?
Re: (Score:2)
I got RIAA in my pants.
According to leading medical research, "RIAA in pants" can cause severe skin irritations. Perhaps you'd like an analgesic cream?
Re: (Score:2)
Look, if Prop 65 wasn't enough to make you move already, this is nothing.
How many customers want to enter some place with a sign that says "Come in and you might die!" Of course, nobody really pays any attention to it anymore because in reality every store, manufacturing facility or office needs to have one of these signs. Why? Well, for starters how about laser printer toner? It is certainly carcinogenic even in small quantities. Of course, you aren't supposed to eat it or breathe it in, but you aren'