RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches

from the entitlement? dept

Wed, May 18th 2011 7:36am — Mike Masnick

Wow. It's been obvious to plenty of people for quite some time that the RIAA and the MPAA don't much care about things like free speech and due process rights afforded to people under the Constitution (see COICA and the PROTECT IP Act). But, I hadn't realized they'd gone so far as to blatantly disregard something like the 4th Amendment. Obviously, as we've been discussing lately, it seems like all three branches of the federal government have decided to crush the 4th Amendment, but they usually try to at least pretend that they're paying attention to the Constitution.

Not any more, apparently.

The RIAA has been pushing the state of California to pass a new law that would allow completely warrantless searches for law enforcement, allowing them to enter and search any CD or DVD manufacturing plant without either notice or a court order.

Yes, let's repeat that: the RIAA is pushing a law that would let law enforcement, without any oversight, without any probable cause, without any notice, enter and search any company premises that involves pressing CDs or DVDs, in order to assure that they're legal. Oh, and if said law enforcement discovers repeat violations, fines can be up to $250,000.

The RIAA claims that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here because of all the recent attacks on the 4th Amendment by the courts:

The RIAA argued that courts had carved out 4th Amendment exceptions already. So far, it said, warrantless searches have been allowed at such businesses as automobile junkyards and repair shops, mines, gun and liquor stores, nursing homes, massage parlors, pawn shops and wholesale fish dealers.

The common trait, the trade group contended, was that the businesses were in "closely regulated" industries in which "the pervasiveness and regularity of the government's regulation reduces the owner's expectation of privacy in his business records."

It gets worse. The RIAA's Marcus Cohen honestly makes this sound like it's no big deal:

"We're literally talking about walking into a plant, walking up to the line and ensuring that, indeed, the discs are in compliance," he said. "I don't think the scope of the search is something a regulator needs to be worried about."

Oh really? And how about the RIAA member labels? How about, in exchange, they let some of us walk into their offices, take a look at their books and ensure that their royalty payments to artists are in compliance? I don't think the scope of such a review is anything to be worried about, right?

And, here's the crazy thing. Despite numerous legal experts saying that the bill is almost certainly unconstitutional, it sounds like it has a decent chance of passing. It's sponsored by California state Senator Alex Padilla and has already been approved by two separate committees, and will be heard on the Senate floor on Monday. If it passes there, it'll go to the Assembly. You can see the full text of the bill, SB 550 at that link, or embedded below.

It's really an astounding showing of the sense of entitlement of the RIAA that it feels that the 4th Amendment shouldn't apply. The RIAA and its member labels should be ashamed of themselves.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: 4th amendment, alex padilla, california, cds, dvds, warrants
Companies: riaa

90 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

rw (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 7:32am

"...they let some of us walk into their offices"

You'll be able to. It should apply across the board. Right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- codeslave (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 8:21am
  
  Re:
  Large corporations will be the only ones with 1st and 4th Amendment rights soon if things continue the way they are. I wonder what justification Congress or the courts will use to grant voting rights to corporation... Their votes will have to be weighted so as not to discriminate against them, of course. Number of employees or market cap on election day?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 18 May 2011 @ 8:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    To be fair, you have to make corporations' and citizens' rights equal.
    
    The weighted voting system will be simple:
    
    $1 = 1 vote. More dollars means more votes.
    
    After all, people with more money have more vested interest in making the political system work properly, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Greg G (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 8:39am
    
    Re: Re:
    No, it'll be dependent upon how old the business is.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike C. (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 7:42am

Unintended consequences
Assuming it does pass, I see all CD and DVD manufacturing leaving the US for Canada... at least until major media corrupts the politicians there as badly as they have here.

Way to go **AA folks... you've just cost us even more jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 7:46am
  
  Re: Unintended consequences
  Assuming it does pass, I see all CD and DVD manufacturing leaving the US for Canada..
  
  Didn't it move to China years ago?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Mike C. (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 8:04am
    
    Re: Re: Unintended consequences
    Possibly, but there's still plenty in the US too. Can't have CD/DVD fabrication of trade secrets being done overseas without risking piracy, right?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Richard (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 8:10am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Unintended consequences
      And then again - every laptop is now a CD/DVD manufacturing device...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 9:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Unintended consequences
        And then again - every laptop is now a CD/DVD manufacturing device...
        
        They'll have to include those too. Sounds like an eventual excuse for warrantless searches of any home with a computer.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hephaestus (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 7:43am

Way to funny .... a law with un-planned obsolescence
They are pushing for a law that will be obsolete in less than five years. After all with the decline in sales over time, who is going to be using CD's or DVD's then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 7:52am
  
  Re: Way to funny .... a law with un-planned obsolescence
  Then I guess they'll want the power to inspect manufacturers who build any device that could potentially hold music.
  
  Of course, in five years, everything will probably have some cheap way to store digital information.
  
  Because jobs! The economy. America! And freedom.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Brian, 18 May 2011 @ 8:37am
    
    Re: Re: Way to funny .... a law with un-planned obsolescence
    And the children, don't forget them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 7:51am

R.I.A.A. = Real Ignorant Assh*les of America
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve, 18 May 2011 @ 7:52am

It's a terrible precedent, but aside from that, I wouldn't be too threatened by this. How much longer are they going to keep manufacturing CD's and DVD's anyway? At least one (if not more) major production plants have already closed due to lack of demand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- You are thinking of CD & DVD manufacturing to, 18 May 2011 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: Narrow thinking.
  They will use this as a precedent when new technology arrives.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 12:38pm
    
    Re: Re: Narrow thinking.
    I don't even download songs to my PC. I listen to them on distributed online hosted drives. They can try to inspect hundreds of thousands of hard drives, each with only a fragment of the information they're looking for, if they want. They could also stop being stupid.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 8:04am

Well, 4th amendment is gone. Now, all we need is to get rid of that annoying freedom of speech thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Freedom of speech is already on its way out. See t, 18 May 2011 @ 9:38am
  
  Re: Freedom of speech is already on its way out...
  Freedom of speech is already on its way out. See the demandprogress.org website for details.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CommonSense (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 8:22am

Hahaha
"The RIAA and its member labels should be ashamed of themselves."

I don't think they know what shame is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
PW (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 8:26am

ACLU
What surprised me most about this was the ACLU's position on the matter. In an LA Times article on this ( http://lat.ms/lQlzRF), here's what they say:

"The American Civil Liberties Union questioned the constitutionality of the bill but so far has not opposed the measure because it said the bill appeared to be narrowly drawn."

While this idea that it may be narrowly construed on the basis of other exceptions to the 4th Amendment may be so, it appears to be just another effort to chip away at those rights. When combined with the recent SCOTUS decision on giving police leeway in home searches ( http://lat.ms/kSizRU), any advances in 4th Amend. rights that might have been made by Sen. Leahy's updating of the ECPA have been obliterated, turning the 4th Amend. into more of a novelty than something truly enforceable. At this stage, our country should just stop embarrassing itself and remove it from the Constitution altogether. We can explain to our kids that the reason the Amendments go from the 3rd to the 5th is that now that we have absolute trust in our gov't and corporations, we no longer need it ;)

Damn shameful what's happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Steve R. (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:10am
  
  Re: ACLU
  I don't think that the ACLU has a real understanding concerning the interaction of technology and personal freedom. The ACLU seems to be amazingly quite.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
HothMonster, 18 May 2011 @ 8:26am

If this passes how long till a pirate just walks in an steals a recently gold movie right off the line? I say 2 weeks.

"Who am I? I'm here from the RIAA, just checking for compliance. No I have no badge or warrant, I don't need one. I'll just be taking this back to the lab for testing."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 18 May 2011 @ 8:30am

killing jobs
All this will do is push those companies out of california. way to go at killing jobs for a broke state!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
me, 18 May 2011 @ 8:33am

I've noticed how anyone who is conservative or right of centre doesn't give a damn about anything but that enormous pile of money they worship. In a perfect world these people would be instutionalized, shot, or sent to Saudi Arabia to fight the Muslim hoards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 18 May 2011 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  Careful. You're starting to sound as extremist as the people you're suggesting be shot.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 8:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    someone who uses the phrase "Muslim hoards" an extremist? naaaaw
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charliebrown (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  Re:
  Nah, you'd go broke from having to buy so many bullets if you shot them, though builders would be employed for years with the number of institutions that would need t obe built if they were institutionalized, so there's a positive thing right there
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 10:56am
  
  Re:
  I've noticed how anyone who is conservative or right of centre doesn't give a damn about anything but that enormous pile of money they worship.
  
  Clearly, painting 50% of the US population as evil with one brush stroke is an entirely rationale position founded in fact. Now all we need is some birther to come in here and claim that "'dem liber-UH-ls are destroying our country!", and the ignorant, partisan, internet hackery will have come full circle.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    You're forgetting that corporations are people too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 12:27pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Corps are run by people, they in themselves are NOT people and should NOT be protected under the Constitution.
      
      For the People, By The People.
      
      Not the Corporations.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - The eejit (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 5:15am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Go tell that to SCOTUS. They made the bed for you.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AG Wright (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 8:34am

Bill of Rights
Come on people that whole Bill of Rights thing is so 18th century. It's been ignored over and over in US history and we're still here as a nation.
A steady erosion of rights in the USA is so much a necessity in our fight for profits and against terrorism, this is partly about terrorism you know and think of the children. The pedophiles are involved here somewhere, I just know it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 8:43am

Our current US government mentality is protect the rich and fuck everyone else. So this probably will pass and go on to become a federal law with lots of prai$e from the labels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh Taylor, 18 May 2011 @ 8:49am

Next thing as I mentioned, The RIAA will demand Congress to make it mandatory to have DRM Thought Police Chips implanted in the brains of American Citizens just in case we sing, hum, think of, or remember a copyrighted song.

I pray and hope that we escape this twisted RIAA totalitarian mind controlling DRM chip regime on May 21 this Friday.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 18 May 2011 @ 8:57am

RIAA
Fourth Amendment Passe? Does the RIAA stand to make even a dime on that statement? They stand to make billions! If they could charge you EVERY time you listened to songs you already paid for they would. Oh Hell! I hope I haven't given them an idea...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charliebrown (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: RIAA
  You haven't given them an idea because they already thought of that for themselves years ago.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NullOp, 18 May 2011 @ 8:59am

Hmm....
Come to think of it, why hasn't the RIAA been charged under the RICO laws?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- halley (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:32am
  
  Re: Hmm....
  It has been tried, on a small scale.
  
  http://news.slashdot.org/story/08/11/21/1644213/RICO-Class-Action-Against-RIAA-In-Missouri
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:04am

nice plant you got here
"We're literally talking about walking into a plant, walking up to the line and ensuring that, indeed, the discs are in compliance... I don't think the scope of the search is something a regulator needs to be worried about."

"Oh, we got a problem here. These discs don't look compliant. Yeah, you got way too many of 'em here, they don't got our seal of approval or nothing, this whole operation got a infringey look. Now you just have a seat while we go through your computer and -- is that your locker? Calm down sir, I don't think this is something you need to worry about."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean T Henry (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:07am
  
  Re: nice plant you got here
  How can you tell if a disk is compliant by looking at it?...
  
  I know we will place stickers on all disks that say "Not for pirate use. Violators will be sent to Davy Jones locker."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - halley (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:35am
    
    Re: Re: nice plant you got here
    RIAA: are you saying you have a locker-full of bootleg Monkees� albums? We are only trying to support our signed artists including Michael Nesmith�, Davy Jones�, Micky Dolenz� and Peter Tork�.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 9:11am

Why is the record industry deciding what our police can and cannot do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ofb2632 (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:12am

Search the RIAA
for now, they RIAA has tons of support from all the bribes, but there may be a time, hopefully soon, when they have someone in the Govt with power that does not like them. I say search the RIAA and see just how many bribes they have given out to get the results they always want. See how many torrents they themselves have posted just to whine and bitch about it later.
I would love to know how many companies they have hired to put out false torrents with the same name as the movie the RIAA has at the movie theater, then force the RIAA to explain how come it is illegal to download the movie torrent when they are themselves paying companies to put them out there. All of this information is on the RIAA computers.
I think the RIAA should sign an agreement to voluntarily forgo the protections of the 4th Amendment. Mabe then we will take them seriously.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ofb2632 (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Search the RIAA
  yes, i said movies and for that i apologize. Insert the word music, please
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- charliebrown (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:23am
  
  Re: Search the RIAA
  Now here's a positive thought: As more and more musicians ditch the RIAA member labels in favour of being independent, they will go broke and not be able to afford to bribe anybody anymore. I just hope that day comes soon.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
FUDbuster (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:16am

I'm not sure this warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment. Recall that the Amendment allows warrantless searches in certain circumstances, including some administrative searches, so long as they are "reasonable." From the Supreme Court:
Because the owner or operator of commercial premises in a �closely regulated� industry has a reduced expectation of privacy, the warrant and probable-cause requirements, which fulfill the traditional Fourth Amendment standard of reasonableness for a government search, see O'Connor v. Ortega, 480 U.S. 709, 741, 107 S.Ct. 1492, ----, 94 L.Ed.2d 714 (1987) (dissenting opinion), have lessened application in this context. Rather, we conclude that, as in other situations of �special need,� see New Jersey v. T.L.O., 469 U.S. 325, 353, 105 S.Ct. 733, 750, 83 L.Ed.2d 720 (1985) (opinion concurring in judgment), where the privacy interests of the owner are **2644 weakened and the government interests in regulating particular businesses are concomitantly heightened, a warrantless inspection of commercial premises may well be reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.

This warrantless inspection, however, even in the context of a pervasively regulated business, will be deemed to be reasonable only so long as three criteria are met. First, there must be a �substantial� government interest that informs the regulatory scheme pursuant to which the inspection is made. See Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S., at 602, 101 S.Ct., at 2540 (�substantial federal interest in improving the health and safety conditions in the Nation's underground and surface mines�); United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S., at 315, 92 S.Ct., at 1596 (regulation of firearms is �of central importance to federal efforts to prevent violent crime and to assist the States in regulating the firearms traffic within their borders�); Colonnade Corp. v. United States, 397 U.S., at 75, 90 S.Ct., at 776 (federal interest �in protecting the revenue against various types of fraud�).

Second, the warrantless inspections must be �necessary to further [the] regulatory scheme.� Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S., at 600, 101 S.Ct., at 2539. For example, in Dewey we recognized that forcing mine inspectors to obtain a warrant before every inspection *703 might alert mine owners or operators to the impending inspection, thereby frustrating the purposes of the Mine Safety and Health Act-to detect and thus to deter safety and health violations. Id., at 603, 101 S.Ct., at 2540.

Finally, �the statute's inspection program, in terms of the certainty and regularity of its application, [must] provid[e] a constitutionally adequate substitute for a warrant.� Ibid. 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 Marshall v. Barlow's, Inc., 436 U.S., at 323, 98 S.Ct., at 1826; see also id., at 332, 98 S.Ct., at 1830 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). To perform this first function, the statute must be �sufficiently comprehensive and defined that the owner of commercial property cannot help but be aware that his property will be subject to periodic inspections undertaken for specific purposes.� Donovan v. Dewey, 452 U.S., at 600, 101 S.Ct., at 2539. In addition, in defining how a statute limits the discretion of the inspectors, we have observed that it must be �carefully limited in time, place, and scope.� United States v. Biswell, 406 U.S., at 315, 92 S.Ct., at 1596.
New York v. Burger, 482 U.S. 691, 702-03, 107 S. Ct. 2636, 2643-44, 96 L. Ed. 2d 601 (1987).

Do these searches meet this test? That's the question. It's not as simple as warrantless search = Fourth Amendment violation, IMO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 9:45am
  
  Re:
  I'm not sure this warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment.
  Of course you don't, because you are a douchebag and a slimeball.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - FUDbuster (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:59am
    
    Re: Re:
    And apparently you didn't get enough love as a child. I feel sorry for ya.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And yet, the RIAA are fighting in the same corner is ICE - you know, that group of people who lauded a bust form Disneyland's doorsteps.
      
      Odd, that.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chris Rhodes (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 10:59am
  
  Re:
  I'm not sure this warrantless search violates the Fourth Amendment. Recall that the Amendment allows warrantless searches in certain circumstances, including some administrative searches, so long as they are "reasonable." From the Supreme Court:
  
  I think you're confusing the constitution with the supreme court.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 11:27am
    
    Re: Re:
    Well, the Fourth Amendment only protects us from unreasonable searches. What's reasonable or not is decided ultimately by the courts, so the courts are the place to look for the answers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - The eejit (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:39am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Alas, SCOTUS has this irritating tendency to punt issues like this.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Chris Rhodes (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:40am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Well, the Fourth Amendment only protects us from unreasonable searches. What's reasonable or not is decided ultimately by the courts, so the courts are the place to look for the answers.
      
      And when the court's answer is "there's no such thing", I don't think they're the one's we should be asking.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 12:07pm
  
  Re:
  Oh, good. All we have to do is "closely regulate" an industry and then we no longer have to worry about that pesky 4th amendment.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike,
    something screwy with your commenting times here.. this post states 12:07pm, mine directly below and in same leaf of thread, says 10:46pm. and this comment was already here before I posted.
    
    Do Anons have diff Time base? or did the server reboot? or have I gone through a time loop without knowing about it.. damn what were those lotto numbers again ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - G Thompson (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:12pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      ugh.. dont worry.. think I need coffee..
      
      Too much blood in my caffeine system.. either that or not having slept for over 25hrs.. Blah
      *The stupidity.. I haz it* ;(
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 10:46pm
  
  Re:
  The 4th has always intrigued me, though like any right it has to have reasonableness built into it to avoid confliction with any other right, either natural or statutory. Also not being a US citizen its interesting the current debates on the 4th and 1st (don't get me started on the 2nd though.. that one is just weird) from an outside looking in perspective.
  
  A few questions though from reading the above
  
  Is the DVD/CD Industries (Publication, Manufacturing, or other) regulated in any way by government.
  
  If regulated is it any different from the standard business regulations that any corporation has under law. In other words is it a substantial regulatory regime?
  
  If substantially different does it have factors that are there to mitigate against negligent (known or unknown) that could cause immense safety, health or financial damage to the public 'at large'.
  
  If all the above are true is the regulatory regime a State or Federally mandated regime? If State does the supremacy rule of Federal Govt effect the regulations
  
  Unless all of the above are positive and there is no Federal v. State problem then I cannot see this law being passed, and if passed I can see it being held as unlawful, unequitable, and most likely conflicts with already available warrant abilities.
  
  Also I can only see a need for this based on the idea that evidence could be destroyed if warrants are applied for first.
  
  Isn't there already a process by which if probable cause exists an Impoundment order (we call them Anton Piller orders) could be applied for and carried out to stop potential destruction of relevant evidence?
  
  Though Anton Piller Orders must here meet three rigorous tests that place a heavy burden on applicants, being:
  * A prima facia case that is extemely strong
  * Any damage must be both serious and reasonably expected to occur
  * A real possibility that any evidence, and that the evidence exists in Respondents possession, may be destroyed before any inter partes application can be initiated
  
  There is also the further burden on the applicant that they must put forth any likely counter arguments of the respondents as though the respondents were present to oppose said order. Not to mention a penalties that can be applied by courts on applicant if any breaches occur.. Sort of like an AntiSLAP situation.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Raphael (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:18am

We're not doing away with free speech
...we're just designating it a 'closely regulated industry.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- halley (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:36am
  
  Re: We're not doing away with free speech
  Is that like a "well-regulated militia"?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Raphael (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:55am
    
    Re: Re: We're not doing away with free speech
    Exactly. And we see how well privatization has worked for national security. It's become extremely responsive to oversight and regulation. Remember when Blackwater guys shot all those Iraqi civilians because they were pissed off about being stuck in traffic? Well, Congress started an investigation and bam! Blackwater changed its name to Xe overnight! What government agency would give you a response that fast?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
charliebrown (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:21am

Fuck 'em
Normally I refrain from swearing as much as I can but in this case I want to say what I really think. So I'll understand if this post gets deleted for excessive use of profanity.

MY THOUGHTS ON THE RIAA: FUCK THE FUCKING FUCKERS!

No, wait, I take that back! Nobody should be forced to actually FUCK them! That's just gross!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 9:36am

If this passes, how long until the RIAA tries to argue that your CD\DVD-RW drive makes you a manufacturer and thus open to warantless searches on suspicion of "counterfeiting"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:40am
  
  Re:
  At which point I would be sharpening them and learning to use them as shuriken.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 3:25pm
  
  Re:
  How long until having the ability to install Linux on a games console is deemed by that console's manufacturer to be a sign that you're a pirate and that feature, that you paid for after it was advertised by them, is taken away under threat of losing the ability to play games/blu-rays...oh...wait...that actually happened...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 9:39am

"RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches"
Whenever the 4th Amendment fails you.. Refer immediately to the 2nd Amendment. It gives "Freedom Of Expression" a whole new meaning. ;D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 3:27pm
  
  Re: "RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches"
  Freedom of expression? 2nd Amendment is the right to keep and bear arms.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Daemon_ZOGG (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 5:11pm
    
    Re: Re: "RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches"
    "Freedom Of Expression" was just an "expression". Not a reference to the actual 2nd Amendment. ;P
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 19 May 2011 @ 5:17am
    
    Re: Re: "RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches"
    Huh? I though it was the right to actual bear arms.
    
    The More You Know!(r)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 9:40am

33 is a good comment reflecting that the 4th Amendment has never been an absolute. Even those who regularly deal with constitutional law, the ACLU included, recognize this to be the case.

Ultimately, constitutionality will be measured against whatever is contained in any legislation that may pass into law as a California statute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- FUDbuster (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 10:02am
  
  Re:
  Right. And it's possible that this violates California's Constitution without violating the U.S. Constitution since California's may offer more (but not less) protection.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 11:08am
    
    Re: Re:
    You raise a point that is generally overlooked in discussions of constitutional law.
    
    It is not at all unusual for a state to have constitutional provisions that are more stringent than the US Constitution. A statute can pass federal muster, and yet fall flat on its face under in state courts.
    
    Federalism is not dead, though it might seem otherwise subsequent to Lochner.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 10:57am

Can we get the BSA goons to descend on the *AA offices to do a license sweep. That would be funny.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chris Rhodes (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:06am

The 4th Is Already Dead
Not only did the US supreme court say this week that the police can themselves create the exigent circumstances necessary to enter private property without a warrant, but the Indiana supreme court declared it illegal to resist the entry of law enforcement onto private property, even if that entry is itself unlawful.

Put two an two together, and not only can the police manufacture themselves a de-facto warrant at will, but even if they don't there's nothing you can do about it anyway. Eat it, serf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 11:41am
  
  Re: The 4th Is Already Dead
  And the basis for new culture is, in fact, old culture. When will we see Sir Obama, or Sir Gingrich?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
harbingerofdoom (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 12:13pm

while this is quite the radical thinking, perhaps its time to wholesale change over the entire government.

do not vote for anyone currently in office or anyone that has previously been in office during the next election. 100% every elected position and then run up to the first news camera and tell them you voted against this kind of crap.

granted, you would have to have 75% of the voters (no, not those, the ones that actually vote) to go along with it and there is way to much self identity for people who are obsessed with partisan politics to work... but i think its something that would make them sit up and take notice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
agh3, 18 May 2011 @ 12:45pm

Not just RIAA..watch out in Indiana
http://www.nwitimes.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_ec169697-a19e-525f-a532-81b3df229697.ht ml

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.
In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 1:18pm

The next step...
First they get this passed then the next step is searching your home, there *IS* a cd burner on your computer, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay Dea, 18 May 2011 @ 1:30pm

I have the answer; but not for creationists...on second thought...
Our democracy has evolved to a point where all searches by the government are reasonable. How could a search not be reasonable � signatures of believers are needed to proceed with any search. We live in an evolved incorruptible democracy pwned by corporate sponsors. BTW did anyone watch Jon Stewart regarding the FCC. Funny stuff.

In the 'extremely rare' chance a search was not reasonable it might be too late. The government most likely would have already provided information to the corporate media to assist in the process of Justice and fairness to all parties involved -sarcasm intended-.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: I have the answer; but not for creationists...on second thought...
  Should have made it hold on to that everstone....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Carmichael, 18 May 2011 @ 1:35pm

Wow Mike, you could start a totally separate blog populated only by stories which shows who violates or attempts to violate the Constitution. Of course, such a blog would get dismissed, because, you know, who cares about the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DJ, 18 May 2011 @ 2:40pm
  
  Re:
  Who is Mike? He sounds kinda important.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rikuo (profile), 18 May 2011 @ 3:31pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Mike is a holy being, one of the Archangels, means "Who is like God?" in Hebrew. There, proof that this blog can't be anything other than the true Word of God!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 1:50pm

Anyone who's been paying attention over the last few years knows that the Fourth Amendment is beyond passe: it's dead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rekrul, 18 May 2011 @ 5:59pm

The part that gets me, and which most people seem to have overlooked is the fact that this law would allow police to conduct warrantless searches of CD/DVD manufacturing plants without any probably cause. Think about that for a moment. If there's no probably cause, why would they be searching the plant in the first place?

Unless I'm missing something, it sounds like the RIAA/MPAA want the police to conduct regular, unannounced inspections. In other words, rather than investigating any alleged crime, they want the police to literally become their own private security force, taking time out from catching real criminals to perform the kind of inspections that the entertainment industry should be doing themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 18 May 2011 @ 11:11pm

Spammers. All of them.
The RIAA, MPAA and drones (mediasentry et al) are spamming us like hell. There is no law against copyright here. There is no DMCA. It's perfectly legal to run a torrent tracker that hosts copyright material.

So since we don't, and won't, pass on the complaints to the customers, they simply flood us with about 5-25 copies of every single complaint. Great strategy. So now they're being reported to spamcop, barracuda networks, and Cisco as spammers.

Others should do the same. Identify the offending source IP/email, set auto redirect to your account, and let's try to get them blacklisted.

That way they won't be able to send out bogus DMCA notices and try to scare people into paying. Bastards. I've made it a goal to distribute as many copyrighted material as long as the law allows me to. So far so good. Eat that, retards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn, 19 May 2011 @ 10:30am

RIAA Calls 4th Amendment Passe: Pushes For Warrantless Searches
Why don't we allow them to take over the inspections of nuclear and top secret facilities while we are at it? How about they just walk into Congress and take a big dump on the Speaker's desk too?

Maybe that isn't enough - perhaps we need to give them powers of arrest, a pair of handcuffs, and a big stick so they can go around, arrest people at random?

Someone or some entity seriously needs to put the RIAA in it's place - a tactical nuke would suffice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adrian, 20 May 2011 @ 2:21am

Alex Padilla has strong motives for authoring bills like this. Here are just a few of them:

(Campaign contributions Alex Padilla Has received - not complete)

RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA PAC WASHINGTON DC / 20036-0000ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION943103 AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #$1,000.00 INITIAL 10/29/2010 10/29/2010 1539329-C7418

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. BURBANK CA / 91522-0000ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATIONAMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #$1,100.00 INITIAL 5/14/2010 5/14/2010 1487977-C6994NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP

WARNER BROS. ENTERTAINMENT INC. BURBANK CA / 91522-0000ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATIONAMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #$1,400.00 INITIAL 5/14/2010 5/14/2010 1487977-C6993

DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC. BURBANK CA / 91521-0000ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATIONAMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #$100.00 INITIAL 5/14/2010 5/14/2010 1487977-C6992NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP

DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC. BURBANK CA / 91521-0000ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATIONAMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #$1,900.00 INITIAL 5/14/2010 5/14/2010 1487977-C6991NAME OF CONTRIBUTOR CITY STATE/ZIP

MOTION PICTURE ASSN. OF AMERICA CA PAC ENCINO CA / 91436-0000ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION901889 AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #$100.00 INITIAL 5/14/2010 5/14/2010 1487977-C6990

MOTION PICTURE ASSN. OF AMERICA CA PAC ENCINO CA / 91436-0000ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION901889 AMOUNT TYPE TRANS. DATE FILED DATE TRANS #$900.00 INITIAL 5/14/2010 5/14/2010 1487977-C2047

DISNEY WORLDWIDE SERVICES, INC. MONETARY BURBANK CA/91521ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATIONAMOUNT TRANS. DATE FILED_DATE TRANS #
$2,000.00 8/24/2007 3/24/2008 1311371-C4055

SONY PICTURES ENT., INC. MONETARY CULVER CITY CA/90232
ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
AMOUNT TRANS. DATE FILED_DATE TRANS #
$1,000.00 8/24/2007 3/24/2008 1311371-C4056

MOTION PICTURE ASSN. OF AMERICA CA PAC MONETARY ENCINO CA/91436
ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
901889
AMOUNT TRANS. DATE FILED_DATE TRANS #
$1,000.00 8/28/2007 3/24/2008 1311371-C4060

PARAMOUNT PICTURES GROUP MONETARY LOS ANGELES CA/90038
ID NUMBER EMPLOYER OCCUPATION
AMOUNT TRANS. DATE FILED_DATE TRANS #
$1,000.00 8/29/2007 3/24/2008 1311371-C4070
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rob, 5 Oct 2011 @ 1:20pm

The law will be struck down if passed. One would expect the 9th Circuit to be particularly protective of 4th Amendment rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 9 Oct 2011 @ 1:43pm

Well
Every single politician that supports this bill should be immediately arrested and tried for treason again the United States and its people.

We can move the case to East Texas (home of the Yee-Haa execution squad), they should have no problems with that right?????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hmm (profile), 9 Oct 2011 @ 1:45pm

and
There's only one circuit thats suitable for the RIAA/MPAA and thats the one connected to the electric chair.

I'm not sure how but these people are getting away with being direct enemies of the US, where other spies and traitors have been hung/shot/electrocuted at the first opportunity.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]