Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Crime Piracy Privacy The Courts United States

RIAA-Backed Warrantless Search Bill In California 208

Posted by timothy from the what's-a-few-amendments-among-friends dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RIAA-Backed Warrantless Search Bill In California More

RIAA-Backed Warrantless Search Bill In California

Comments Filter:

  • riaa backs unconstitutional bill... (Score:4, Funny)

    by ganjadude ( 952775 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:02PM (#36182184) Homepage
    and water is wet, details at 11
    • And some of the few people who notice and realize the significance of it shrug it off because it's not new and is evidently boring. Or maybe just because they want to excuse their apathy.

      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)

      by MarkvW ( 1037596 )

      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)

      by Kamiza Ikioi ( 893310 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @04:28PM (#36184124)

      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)

        by vinn01 ( 178295 )

        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.

  • Is this international kill the 4th amendment week in the US???

    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.

    • 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.

      • 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)

          by Seumas ( 6865 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:39PM (#36182688)

          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)

          by cdrguru ( 88047 )

          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)

        by Seumas ( 6865 )

        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)

          by Shagg ( 99693 )

          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.

    • 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)

      by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:42PM (#36182742) Journal

      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.

      • 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)

          by Hatta ( 162192 )

          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.

  • Because what could be more important... (Score:5, Informative)

    by gestalt_n_pepper ( 991155 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:07PM (#36182252)

    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)

      by Kenja ( 541830 )
      Given that music and movies are about the only thing we as a nation create these days... Only partially kidding is the sad part. Time to cry into my imported mexican Coca-Cola (with actual sugar!).
    • Music piracy is a gateway to real piracy. I bet every Somalian pirate has pirated music or movies before he became a real pirate.

  • Oh no! my disc replication plant!! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bit trollent ( 824666 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:10PM (#36182298) Homepage

    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.

    • 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)

      by langelgjm ( 860756 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:21PM (#36182470) Journal

      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)

        by memnock ( 466995 )

        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.

      • 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

      • Actually (I work in environmental and safety compliance) a lot of those inspections aren't even truly warrantless. You can deny an inspector access to a private facility and they do have to come back with a warrant. Its just that nobody in their right mind would do so because then the inspector is going to be pissed and assume you are hiding things.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Grond ( 15515 )

        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.

      • 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)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @03:24PM (#36183254) Homepage Journal

        Where is the pressing public necessity that justifies the encroachment on the 4th Amendment?

        *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)

      by profplump ( 309017 ) <zach-slashjunk@kotlarek.com> on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:35PM (#36182628)

      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.

      • 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

    • 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)

        by fnj ( 64210 )

        [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.

        • 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)

      by Kohath ( 38547 )

      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)

        by cdrguru ( 88047 )

        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

    • 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?

    • 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)

      by anegg ( 1390659 )

      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)

      by Nikker ( 749551 )
      If this is for commercial plants then why not have the company acknowledge beforehand that they will allow for random searches? This type of law makes the whole situation so ambiguous that it make very little sense. It would be similar to a resturant owner having random inspections. This does not fall under the fourth because it is a condition of their operation and is signed and agreed to well beforehand. This interpretation just means the police get to descide whether your business is suitable to be insp

  • 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

    • "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.

  • 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)

      by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:25PM (#36182514)

      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?

      • Who dies if the copyright cops have to wait to get a warrant as opposed to not getting one?

        Kittens, and corporate profits.

        You don't want to kill kittens, do you?

    • Businesses are generally PRIVATE property owned by CITIZENS. Inspections for safety are in the public's interest, it makes sense and even then they cant just barge into sensitive and trade secret areas on a whim. No one from OSHA could force their way into a building through use of force or violence. Police action fishing for copyright compliance is not the same thing at all. Do i really need to write out a long post to explain the difference between safety regulations and criminal law enforcement in a fre

    • Re:This is one of the few that is legal and 'right (Score:5, Informative)

      by Grond ( 15515 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @03:09PM (#36183096) Homepage

      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)

      by anegg ( 1390659 )
      Businesses are owned by people. The property of a business is private property. Government cannot enter upon private property without a warrant. All of the inspections that you mention require arrangements for inspection, some with penalties if the inspections are denied, but all require some kind of process surrounding the inspection. Not a blanket permit for the police(!) to walk through the business looking for violations of law.

  • 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.

  • Maybe Constitutional, Maybe Not (Score:5, Informative)

    by Grond ( 15515 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @02:26PM (#36182520) Homepage

    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.

  • for the people of this once great country to finally stand up for themselves and assert the power they've always had?

    "Stand up for my rights? I'd rather sit down and watch American Idol."

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fnj ( 64210 )

      Let's just say, I wouldn't hold my breath. Never underestimate the stupidity of the voters. There's a sucker born every minute.

  • So, my car was broken into last night. The thief, ate my crackers, took the $2 in meter change, and left the 20 CD's stacked there. So the RIAA is pursuing CD duplication? Not even petty thieves see it worth their effort to steal them at this point. This is so anachronistic it proves how little they understand their own market.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      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.

  • ...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

  • 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)

      by blair1q ( 305137 )

      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.

    • 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

    • 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.

      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

  • 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

    • 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.

  • 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. 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)

    by Dcnjoe60 ( 682885 ) on Thursday May 19, 2011 @04:38PM (#36184252)

    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)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *

    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.

  • (whispers... police here....)

    Ok boys, break the door down....

  • "...any equipment that does not stamp the appropriate mark on the discs in question, or any equipment that would make it easy to forge the mark..."
    in other words: "any equipment, period."

Slashdot Top Deals

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it." - Bert Lantz

Close