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.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.
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."
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.
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, private property, warrants
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While they're searching . . .
Who could possibly be against that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While they're searching . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While they're searching . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While they're searching . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: While they're searching . . .
. . . 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While they're searching . . .
Those things are used for piracy you know!
If you haven't done anything wrong, then you've got nothing to be afraid of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: While they're searching . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have they searched the RIAA yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Have they searched the RIAA yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's not a right, it's a privilege.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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 /
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem, this law will certainly fall when they test the constitutional aspects. Or so I hope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Both are idiots independent of the party they belong to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One has to wonder
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: One has to wonder
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One has to wonder
"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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: One has to wonder
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: One has to wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dare we hope?
;-P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Dare we hope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dare we hope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Dare we hope?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those other inspections you mention have a porpoise of protecting public health and safety.
There is a difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Flipper's got a gun....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A friendly warning to the searchers:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
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?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
All businesses already ARE licensed.
And no, stating the facts above doesn't mean I'm for this, though won't hurt me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All businesses already ARE licensed.
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: All businesses already ARE licensed.
What a sad little slave is OOTB, throwing himself on the mercy of his masters in government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Moonbeam
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I thought that had been suspended by ICE and the TSA for 200 miles inland of every border.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And of course..
Himmler would be proud; we are more and more turning our cops/military into the Gestapo/SS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In the end
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I finally gave up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, the fifth amendment was already gone, so why not?
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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consitutional 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.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporations Standing the Test of Time..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revolt
Revolt slaves, revolt!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ending US citizens rights
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Warrants, we don't need no stinkin' warrants
Say it loud and proud.
Warrants, we don't need no stinkin' warrants
[ link to this | view in chronology ]