RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants
from the the-infringement-police dept
One of my favorite historical stories that really demonstrates how a “legacy” industry can take regulatory capture to extreme lengths to protect their monopoly rights is the story of the French button-makers guild in 1666, as relayed by famed economic historian Robert Heilbroner:
The question has come up whether a guild master of the weaving industry should be allowed to try an innovation in his product. The verdict: ‘If a cloth weaver intends to process a piece according to his own invention, he must not set it on the loom, but should obtain permission from the judges of the town to employ the number and length of threads that he desires, after the question has been considered by four of the oldest merchants and four of the oldest weavers of the guild.’ One can imagine how many suggestions for change were tolerated.
Shortly after the matter of cloth weaving has been disposed of, the button makers guild raises a cry of outrage; the tailors are beginning to make buttons out of cloth, an unheard-of thing. The government, indignant that an innovation should threaten a settled industry, imposes a fine on the cloth-button makers. But the wardens of the button guild are not yet satisfied. They demand the right to search people’s homes and wardrobes and fine and even arrest them on the streets if they are seen wearing these subversive goods.”
It’s not hard to see the RIAA or the MPAA in that description of the old guilds, and it seems like they’re trying to take the comparison even further. As we covered back in May, the RIAA has been pushing really, really hard for California to pass a law that would allow for warrantless searches of private property, specifically of anyone involved in reproducing CDs or DVDs for “commercial” purposes. The RIAA was so cavalier about this, that a spokesperson even said: “I don’t think the scope of the search is something a regulator needs to be worried about.” In other words, no government oversight. Just go ahead and search private businesses.
This seemed to be so obviously against the 4th Amendment that it seemed ridiculous that anyone would seriously consider such a bill. So, of course, Governor Jerry Brown of California just signed it into law. The law decimates the 4th Amendment, and says that law enforcement has the right to search the premises of anyone making optical discs for commercial purposes, without any warning or warrant. Hell, even the state’s own analysis of the bill warns that it’s not sure that the bill “would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.”
It’s beginning to sound like the French button makers guild getting to enter your homes and closets to find those dreaded “non-compliant” buttons. It’s getting so ridiculous that even those who are generally supporters of the RIAA/MPAA’s positions are saying this bill goes way too far, noting that it grants way too much power to law enforcement (often at the urging of private industry) to go on “fishing expeditions” at companies they dislike. And let’s not even get started on what kind of precedent it sets when you can so easily remove the Constitutional requirement for a warrant.
Filed Under: 4th amendment, private property, warrants
Companies: riaa
Comments on “RIAA Law Lets Law Enforcement Ignore 4th Amendment, Search Private Property With No Warrants”
Count down to weird troll exuberance over violating the constitution … 5, 4, 3, 2, …
Re: Re:
I think all the meth labs will love this law.
All they have to do is loudly advertise that they make CDs and DVDs and make sure they hint they are making illegal copies.
Then, when the police bust in without a warrant, there will now be an essentially legal meth lab, as nothing discovered by the illegal search can ever be used in court, not even to get a real warrant.
While they're searching . . .
. . . could they please look for pirated software? (says the BSA skulking in the dark shadows, not accustomed to full sunlight)
Who could possibly be against that?
Re: While they're searching . . .
OOh! AND perhaps they could get the damnable “open source” software legally defined as “pirated” software? (says the BSA apprentice, half skulking in the dark shadows)
Re: Re: While they're searching . . .
And if any computers happen to have browser cookies from archive.org (which is, as we all know, a rogue site) feel free to waterboard the lot.
Re: Re: While they're searching . . .
Yeah, that damnable “open source” software violates all sorts of patents. We need to expand this to include warrantless searches of cellphone stores to eradicate Android (says the annonymous BSA infringement reporting snitch)
Re: While they're searching . . .
. . . could they please look for anything that might infringe upon anyone’s trademark? (says a coughing wheezing executive)
. . . could they please look for photographs that might include any buildings, architecture or artwork that requires copyright permission? (says a brightly dressed clown in the corner twiddling his oversize ears)
Since this is all still under the umbrella of Intellectual Property, and therefore nobody should mind . . .
. . . could they please also look to see if you might be infringing upon anyone’s patents? (says a troll snickering)
. . . could they also please to check if you might be infringing upon anyone’s trade secret rights, since that is still intellectual property? (whispers a gargoyle)
Who could possibly be against that!
Hey, while they are looking, could they please check to see if you’ve written anything libelous or slanderous?
Possibly you have a book in your possession and the author of the book infringed someone’s copyright or plagiarised someone’s work.
Maybe you’ve been lying to your friends? Or maybe you and your dirty no good friends have been saying bad things about the government, or worse (gasp!) groups like the RIAA / MPAA / BSA who only stand up to represent the often understated views of their members.
And, hey, while you’re looking, who could possibly be against searching for kiddy pr0n? Think of the children!
And you might be a terrorist!
But at least, we can rest assured that this law won’t be taken too far.
Re: Re: While they're searching . . .
. . . could you check that they are not concealing any USB thumb drives or SD cards in their underwear?
Those things are used for piracy you know!
If you haven’t done anything wrong, then you’ve got nothing to be afraid of.
Re: Re: While they're searching . . .
Go into the family video shelf too. I’ve heard some of these extremists regularly sing “Happy Birthday”. They ALL know that’s a copyrighted song. Hey- I notice a newspaper in the bin- do they have proof of purchase of that newspaper? Check the kids schoolbags too. I bet they’ve been photocopying pages out of text books to do their homework. Evil little twerp subversives. They know they’re copyrighted text books too
Have they searched the RIAA yet?
Considering they traffic drugs?
Re: Have they searched the RIAA yet?
In their anus.
“monopoly rights”
It’s not a right, it’s a privilege.
Re: Re:
Not according to the terms of the Copyright Act, which refers to “exclusive rights.”
Re: Re: Re:
It also makes reference to a “limited time” for copyright, but…well, as it stands today we’ll all be dead before that time expires, so why worry about it, right?
Re: Re: Re:
Forced monopoly.
“Governor Jerry Brown of California just signed it into law“
My guess is that any governor of California gets a lot of “support” from the RIAA and the MPAA, i.e., money, cash, free drugs, hookers, checks, etc.
In fact, my guess is that if Brown didn’t sign it, someone would have found him dead within the week.
Re: Re:
He might already BE dead for all we know.
The RIAA mastered the art of bringing the dead back to life as customer-hating zombies a long time ago……..
/buy our product…ignore our violation of your rights…don’t use your BRAAAAIIIINNNNNSSSSSSS /
Oh, there they are, kicking the corpse of the US Constitution again. Bush must be proud.
Ahem, this law will certainly fall when they test the constitutional aspects. Or so I hope.
Re: Re:
You know Brown is a democrat right? But why let facts get in the way of a good Bush bashing…
Re: Re: Re:
Does it matter if he is democrat or not?
Both are idiots independent of the party they belong to.
Re: Re: Re:
Doesn’t matter whose “team” each guy is on. They both love using the Constitution for toilet paper.
One has to wonder
One has to wonder if this country is not rapidly approaching a time when the citizenry will begin exercising their rights under the 2nd amendment of the Constitution to ensure their rights under all the others.
Re: One has to wonder
that was the point of the second constitution. Especially the militia part.
Re: Re: One has to wonder
oops, sorry. Meant to say second amendment.
Re: Re: Re: One has to wonder
We’ll use the second amendment to make a second constitution?
Re: Re: Re:2 One has to wonder
At gunpoint, to boot! TAKE THAT, CONSTITUTION!
Re: One has to wonder
One has to wonder why anyone would consider armed conflict over copyright. You would have to be off your meds to even think of it.
Re: Re: One has to wonder
one has to wonder why anyone would believe that copyright is the only and most important reason.
Re: Re: One has to wonder
I don’t give a shit for what reason they’re breaking the 4th amendment, copyright or drugs or whatever. The fact is they are ignoring it using excuses like copyright.
Re: Re: One has to wonder
The conflict isn’t necessarily about copyright. Excessive abuses of the copyright and patent systems are simply symptoms of a larger societal disease. Bear in mind I’m a United Statsian so everything I write is in that context (although applying it to other Western nations isn’t a stretch).
The real problem is the marginalization of the working class and the geometric increase in power of multinational corporations. We have seen, time and time again how when the two come to loggerheads, the rights of the corporation trump those of the individual.
People are struggling to put food on the table and we get to hear about CEO’s will multi-million dollar golden parachutes who have driven the economy into the ground in the sociopathic pursuit of more money than an average person will spend in a lifetime.
The price of fuel goes up, and we hear about bought and paid for politicians squabbling with each other over which one is the anti-Christ while they pay absolutely no heed to the population which they are supposed to represent.
So yes AC, an armed conflict over JUST copyright would be silly. But rebellion over mismanagement of our economy, abuse of our legal system, and corruption in our politicians may be closer than you think.
Re: Re: Re: One has to wonder
With all due respect, you elected the people who manage the economy. If you don’t like what they are doing, fire them and replace them.
“we the people” is a two way street. You have to admit your own errors before you can move forward. You know, errors like having a “we / they” mentality that exists in a two party political system, the desire for every American to own a huge an unjustifiable home, well beyond their means, by using financial trickery to do it.
The American people have profited from their own choices, and now they are made because they made a couple of bad choices in a row. Too bad they can’t seem to get mad at themselves and the system that got them there, rather they get mad at the results. It’s the “kick the dog” mentality that is so hard to swallow.
Re: Re: Re:2 One has to wonder
With like due respect I would offer that this typical answer/point is all too rapidly becoming pure bullshit. One needs the influence/support of a party – and which party is representing the people these days whilst said representation is not cushioned within a bountiful harvest for those already with abundance? Once elected who gets their ears most often? – Who fills their re-election chests?
“We The People” is fast becoming a one way street, too fast.
Let them make their laws. Let them encroach the foundations of our very existence. Let them make our cake. More laws please, for the water will not boil over without them. There are no kings here and the cemetery gates are open.
Re: Re: Re:2 One has to wonder
And while we are on the subject, “When the clouds were eventually cleared and the vail was pulled back, we found out that an unwary Mike Masnick, hosted Techdirt blog site was actually being used by the giants in Washington who use the CIA as a stringed puppet ravegely, with wringing hands in dark places smashmouthing up these whacked out comments like VIPd free cavier and Cinnamin root Melba toast at an Edie Gormet and Steve Lawrence opening at the Carlton Ritz in Tangiers!?”
Re: Re: One has to wonder
It happened before a hundred times in history, why not?
Re: Re: One has to wonder
because copyright is stage 1.
Stage 2 and above basically turn the US into a non-democratic country.
It HAS to start with a slow erosion of rights to get people “used” to having no control over their own lives otherwise it spills into armed rebellion across the entire USA.
Unfortunately the internet means people can see in real-time the changes as they happen, first one state is ‘tested’ then another then another to see how far a particular law can be pushed before the citizens break so you know EXACTLY which laws to collapse and which to maintain until the end when you suspend/erase the constitution.
Re: One has to wonder
Careful talking about the amendment we can’t name. You might get named as a “threat,” and we have all seen what happens when Fuhrer Obama names puts someone on his list.
On the plus side.. People eventually got past fining the cloth button makers… Dare we hope?
Re: Dare we hope?
If memory serves, there was a bloody revolution in which a cloth-bladed guillotine was used to behead the button aristocrats.
;-P
Re: Re: Dare we hope?
That. I also just noticed the year is 1666. Not that I’m superstitious or believe in such things.
Re: Re: Re: Dare we hope?
Yes, “16” has always held a mysterious power…
Re: Re: Re: Dare we hope?
Let’s look at that shall we? 1666 seems like an innocuous little number doesn’t it? Well I agree too…too…too, let’s multiply it by two! That gives us 3332. I’m starting to feel weak…weak…week! There are 52 weeks in a year, for no reason whatsoever let’s divide that by two and add it to 3332 to get 3358. Now why does that look so familiar…? Let’s convert it to hex to get D1E…we’re all going to die! You have a right to be superstitious, my numerology provides and open and shut case.
Re: Re:
That. After some blood bath we’ll eventually pass. And MAFIAA will die out for our delight.
…The state’s own analysis of the bill warns that it’s not sure that the bill “would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.”
Really? Not sure? Sounds like weasel-wording to me. I think it’s pretty clear that it wouldn’t.
Of course, first the constitution has to get close enough to scrute.
Why doesn’t the government established mainstream media cartel mention any of this? Oh, that’s right, they’re too busy making a big issue out of pointless issues like the personal affairs of various celebrities. They’re too busy trying to brainwash the public into thinking that IP is somehow a good thing without allowing any IP criticism into the debate.
Re: Re:
and they’re too busy conditioning the public to be more afraid of ‘crime’ (sometimes for various political reasons) despite the fact that crime rates have been declining.
All they have to do to make this totally legal is require the CD and DVD replicators be licensed as DVD and CD replicators.
Then they are subject to licensing inspections.
I’m in an industry that has to allow Police and Fire inspections every year due to our licensing requirements.
No inspection: close the doors and go out of business.
Same with restaurants and health inspectors.
Re: Re:
So let me ask you, look at your computer’s CD/DVD drive and tell me if it’s a burner or not.
Re: Re:
The CD and DVD inspections are for the purpose of protecting someone’s profits.
Those other inspections you mention have a porpoise of protecting public health and safety.
There is a difference.
Re: Re: Re:
I agree with you, but it is a way to get around the 4th amendment.
Re: Re: Re:
“Those other inspections you mention have a porpoise of protecting public health and safety.”
Flipper’s got a gun….
The RIAA should learn that overreach like this frequently makes enemies out of old allies.
Re: Re:
Overreach like this, eventually, backfires spectacularly.
Re: Re: Re:
I agree, with every large corporation and group (RIAA-MPAA-Big Energy-etc) over reaching the backlash should be huge. It gives everyone something to gripe and harp about.
A friendly warning to the searchers:
Don’t bump the mouse.
and when these laws are applied, then exercised against those that wanted them in the first place, i can hear the cries of ‘i claim my rights under the 4th amendment and any other amendment that there is as well’.
the moral of the story being, ‘dont do to others unless you’re prepared to have it done unto you’!
man! would that make my day or what?
Re: Re:
^This.
How about all those artists complaints about the record labels screwing them out of their royalties. Sounds like every single financial record should be seized and searched.
How about the DEA start searching everything at Universal and its subsidiaries without warrants. They’re drug traffickers, remember?
All businesses already ARE licensed.
#23 “tuna” almost got it. This doesn’t necessarily raise ANY Constitutional questions because business exist only by /permission/ of the state (properly. only when acting as servant of the people). — It’s another stripe of pro-corporatist who think that businesses /do/ have rights. But those two wrong notions aren’t the only options, people, just the way that you’re manipulated into only considering your rights as possible IF corporations enjoy those too and are left “free” to run wild — as here, one bunch of corporations getting a “law” passed.
And no, stating the facts above doesn’t mean I’m for this, though won’t hurt me…
Re: All businesses already ARE licensed.
I would much rather that corporations be free to “run wild” and free to fail than what we have now, where the biggest, most corrupt corporations get to buy laws that favor them and receive taxpayer-funded bailouts whenever they get burned by unreasonably risky business practices.
Government “regulation” will ALWAYS lead to corruption, and the regulatory penalties will always be toothless in comparison to free market consequences. (I mean TRUE free-market consequences, not the crony-capitalist scam we’ve put up with for the last several decades.) The results of the banking fraud should have been bankruptcy. Instead, they were rewarded with trillions of dollars of free Fed money that the rest of us get to pay for through inflation. The results of polluting the air or water should be crippling, bankrupting civil lawsuits, not lame EPA fines and protectionism.
Re: All businesses already ARE licensed.
Business is trade, a function of private property. If you believe business exists only because the state permits it, then you must also believe that you exist only because the state permits it.
What a sad little slave is OOTB, throwing himself on the mercy of his masters in government.
RIAA
The RIAA and MPAA should be dissolved by law.
Moonbeam
Moonbeam strikes again.
The landfills will be littered with the DVDR/W drives from the laptops of a drug dealers removed on the advice of counsel to preclude the police justification for a warrant-less search…
Please… do try to enter my house without a warrant. I double dog dare you.
We need a simple reform: Voting for or signing an unconstitutional law should be considered treason. Then when lawmakers pass into law such things, we can throw them in jail. I’m afraid if that sort of thing doesn’t happen, instead we’ll see torches and pitchforks. Not that I’ll cry for them, but oh well…
Re: Re:
Agreed, however it needs to be limited to laws that fail constitutional analysis before the vote (such as this law, ACTA, ProtectIP…).
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not sure why such a limitation needs to be in place. If I ask my lawyer and they incorrectly tell me that a particular action is legal, that does not protect me from being convicted. I think that if the law passes constitutional analysis before the vote, that should be a mitigating circumstance, but not exonerating.
Re: Re:
We’re going to have to settle for the torches and pitchforks. I completely support your assertion but ironically it would be unconstitutional. From Wikipedia:
[i]To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Iva Toguri, known as Tokyo Rose, and Tomoya Kawakita were two Japanese Americans who were tried for treason after World War II.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
[/i]
I still think there should be some sort of severe penalty but treason is out of the question. If nothing else, a public official that supports and passes an unconstitutional law should be impeached with prejudice.
Re: Re: Re:
/stilllernintodoitrite
Sorry the above should have looked like this:
We’re going to have to settle for the torches and pitchforks. I completely support your assertion but ironically it would be unconstitutional. From Wikipedia:
“To avoid the abuses of the English law (including executions by Henry VIII of those who criticized his repeated marriages), treason was specifically defined in the United States Constitution, the only crime so defined. Article III Section 3 delineates treason as follows:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.”
I still think there should be some sort of severe penalty but treason is out of the question. If nothing else, a public official that supports and passes an unconstitutional law should be impeached with prejudice.
Re: Re: Re:
I suppose we have several options:
1) Change the Constitution to redefine treason to include using the powers granted by an office of the United States in contradiction to the Constitution.
2) Create a new offense.
I believe such an offense belongs in the Constitution but at this point, even a law would be nice. Unfortunately, you are probably right. Torches and pitchforks it what it’s going to come down to.
We still have a 4th amendment?
I thought that had been suspended by ICE and the TSA for 200 miles inland of every border.
And of course..
if they find any drugs or contraband then it will be seized and the people there arrested. Even if they are only allowed to seize stuff related to copying CD/DVD, they will be on the premises and can see the stuff and can then simply go and demand a warrant for the drugs, stating “we have seen the stuff!”
Himmler would be proud; we are more and more turning our cops/military into the Gestapo/SS
In the end
The bottom line here is that government has jumped the shark; outlived its usefulness. Time for change.
I finally gave up
I don’t buy music, movies, or software anymore. Period. Neither do I pirate it. Come on now, what do they produce anymore that’s worth a shit anyway? Let them do whatever they want. Just ignore them.
Well, the fifth amendment was already gone, so why not?
The President already got a two-fer when he assassinated and American citizen and the fifth amendment in one fell swoop, so it’s hardly surprising the others are now up for grabs too.
They do, after all, inconvenience the ruling class with minor things like protection from unwarranted searches and having to use pesky things like “due process”. The President authorized the premeditated murder of an innocent man and bragged about it afterwards, in other words.
It doesn’t matter how much proof (not that we’ve seen much if any) is offered that Al-Awlaki was guilty until such a time as that has been proven in a court of law and he has been found guilty. Until such a time, he was innocent in the eyes of the law. At least if we’re going to keep using pesky things like due process and, in this case, the rights guaranteed by the fourth amendment.
Progressives (and anyone else law-abiding who likes the constitution) had better step up now or else forever hold their peace, because rights once taken away are one hell of a lot harder to claw back later.
Consitutional Scrutiny
Hell, even the state’s own analysis of the bill warns that it’s not sure that the bill “would stand up to constitutional scrutiny.”
When has the unlikelihood of a proposed billed not passing that test ever prevented one from being passed? The scrutinizing will employ about what? (Guessing) 148,102, including lawyers and legislators and judges, assistants, hotdog vendors, park services, parking attendants, off duty Police Officers, News journalists, day care workers, diaper services, night maintenance persons,etc, etc..
That’s what is so great about this country. Its being able to not lose your cookies over news like this that makes America strong.
Corporations Standing the Test of Time..
In a perfect world according to what has been witnessed so far on this planet, say, in the last 100 years or so, these corporations are still trying to carve their way through a very real sense of longevity, a larger than life persona to which they are all mucking their way down a long dark corridor, not having withstood a test of time throughout the ages, but still relishing in an ancient power, they are forever displaced by us humans. That is where the paranoia has taken us along with them as they use governments and whatever methods at their disposals. In a perfect world, these corporations could carry on without human efforts, operating in a pure function relagated authority of self and do appear to be delegating propositions to that end.
Revolt
When the repressive yoke of government weighs mightly upon your necks:
Revolt slaves, revolt!
ending US citizens rights
Dear RIAA/MPAA etc,
There are 312,392,000 of us a couple of thousand of you.
Push us too far and see who’s the one that ends up in front of a firing squad.
Yours Sincerely
The American Public
Warrants, we don't need no stinkin' warrants
Government of the corporations, by the corporations, for the corporations.
Say it loud and proud.
Warrants, we don’t need no stinkin’ warrants