Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Takes the Fight to the Streets
Lapzilla writes "In an article from LA Weekly, it would appear the RIAA has taken their fight to the streets. Wearing jackets with "RIAA" emblazoned upon them, they have taken to busting street vendors in an FBI fashion for selling bootleg CDs and DVDs."
Oh they really chose the perfect city for their testing grounds. LA is probably the city that has the most lawyers per person living there.
Well, if you ever get in trouble with the RIAA in the streets of LA, try the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Here are a few tips from the EFF if you get in trouble with the RIAA.
I wonder if their jackets are copyrighted. It would be funny to find RIAA jackets for sale downtown LA. But then again, who would wear them!
It is not enough to have a good mind. The main thing is to use it well. - Rene Descartes (1637)
There is a word for one who takes the law into his/her own hands: vigilante.
Esoteric reference.
"They tried to scare me," Borrayo said. "They told me, 'You're a pirate!' I said, 'C'mon, guys, pirates are all at sea. I just work in a parking lot.' "
You said it! Copyright infringement isn't theft; it's property devaluation.
Of course, since there's no proof this guy was even selling bootlegged wares, he didn't even engage in that.
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.
Except under some VERY limited circumstances, private citizens are not allowed to enforce the law, and even then they are taking a risk of being charged themselves.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
The thought of going out anf finding people violating copyright laws for profit is a swell idea in practice.
However, pretending to be cops is, lats I checked, illegal. Just because you say "We're not police" doesnt mean a whole helluva lot when you're dressed like a narcotics team and the average IQ of your everyday joe hovers just slightly above that of a rock.
i'm just sayin'.
s'wut i sed.
It is illegal to kill someone for a property crime. Even the police can not shot someone for stealing. Please find someplace else to live. This is a free country so you are free to find a different one where killing someone for stealing is find and dandy. Go there please.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
From Crimedoctor:
You must approach the shoplifter outside of the store. Although not technically necessary, following this step eliminates all possibility that the shoplifter still intends to pay for the stolen product. A few courts have held that detaining someone for shoplifting inside a retail store does not establish the criminal intent of theft. However, in several states shoplifters can be detained once they have concealed the merchandise. When approaching a shoplifter outside of the store always have a least one trained employee as a witness. There is safety in numbers and most shoplifters will cooperate if they believe fighting or running is futile. When you approach a shoplifter outside it is important to identify yourself clearly and your authority for stopping them. Plain-clothes loss prevention agents carry badges or official looking ID cards so the shoplifter has no doubt who they are. Most shoplifter apprehensions should be accomplished with no force or if necessary, minimal force like touching or guiding. Professional loss prevention agents sometimes will use handcuffs to take someone into custody, if they are first trained how and when to legally apply them properly.
In almost every jurisdiction if you follow these six steps, you should have no problem with proving criminal intent to shoplift and be able to establish probable cause to detain a shoplifter.
I guess the question is exactly how can a store detain you, especially if the items shoplifted are at a value low enough for the crime to be a misdemeanor?
That is where Security Expert comes into play:
In almost all jurisdictions in the United States, merchants are legally empowered to detain shoplifting suspects for investigation and possible arrest and prosecution in the criminal justice system. This power is called "merchant's privilege."
There are more details about Merchant's privilege in the aformentioned link.
You are allowed to protect your own property with reasonable force. If someone tries to steal your car, you can perfectly legal pull him out of the car and kick him a few times to keep him down. Shooting the idiot is most obviously going too far.
Here's a case local to me dealing with just this issue: link
Citizen's arrest powers only apply to violent acts, and usually only to felonies. Sorry, but you can't slap handcuffs on the guy in the next cube because he has a few MP3's.
[constitution.org]
What's that smell? Ah, that's my karma burning...
"The process of confiscating bootleg CDs from street vendors is exactly what the RIAA should be doing," said Jason Schultz, a staff attorney for the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
No. Confiscation should be left up to the courts. The RIAA should, if it feels it has a valid complaint, report it to the authorities. Confiscation, by a corporation or private individual, should never be allowed. At the point they are doing this, nothing has been proven in a court of law. Due process, people.
In Lee Corso fashion... "Not so fast!" Let's read on about 13-405, 13-406, and 13-411:
13-404. Justification; self-defense
A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person is justified in threatening or using physical force against another when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force.
B. The threat or use of physical force against another is not justified:
1) In response to verbal provocation alone; or
2) To resist an arrest that the person knows or should know is being made by a peace officer or by a person acting in a peace officer's presence and at his direction, whether the arrest is lawful or unlawful, unless the physical force used by the peace officer exceeds that allowed by law; or
3) If the person provoked the other's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force, unless:
a) The person withdraws from the encounter or clearly communicates to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely withdraw from the encounter; and
b) The other nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful physical force against the person.
13-405. Justification; use of deadly physical force
A person is justified in threatening or using deadly physical force against another:
1. If such person would be justified in threatening or using physical force against the other under 13-404, and
2. When and to the degree a reasonable person would believe that deadly physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful deadly physical force.
13-406. Justification; defense of a third person
A person is justified in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force against another to protect a third person if:
1. Under the circumstances as a reasonable person would believe them to be, such person would be justified under 13-404 or 13-405 in threatening or using physical force or deadly physical force to protect himself against the unlawful physical force or deadly physical force a reasonable person would believe is threatening the third person he seeks to protect; and
2. A reasonable person would believe that such person's intervention is immediately necessary to protect the third person.
13-411. Justification; use of force in crime prevention
A. A person is justified in threatening or using both physical force and deadly physical force against another if and to the extent the person reasonably believes that physical force or deadly physical force is immediately necessary to prevent the other's commission of arson of an occupied structure under 13-1704, burglary in the second or first degree under 13-1507 or 13-1508, kidnapping under 13-1304, manslaughter under 13-1103, second or first degree murder under 13-1104 or 13-1105, sexual conduct with a minor under 13-1405, sexual assault under 13-1406, child molestation under 13-1410, armed robbery under 13-1904, or aggravated assault under 13-1204, subsection A, paragraphs 1 and 2.
B. There is no duty to retreat before threatening or using deadly physical force justified by subsection A of this section.
C. A person is presumed to be acting reasonably for the purposes of this section if he is acting to prevent the commission of any of the offenses listed in subsection A of this section.
I put relevant pieces in bold. It looks like most of the use of deadly force falls under self defense. The only part that seems relevant is the reference to "burglary in the second or first degree under 13-1507 or 13-1508" of which are not available in that webpage so I am not sure of the 'shooting the guy stealing your car out of your driveway' scenario is covered.
In Texas it is legal to use lethal force to protect property. If someone trespassing on private property they can be shot. So if at 3 in the morning I hear some crackhead breaking in my house I can use my 12 Gauge.
Their attire is completly irrelevant to this point.
Not if it would lead a reasonable person to believe that they are a police officer.
If they represented themselves as police officers then they are guilty of a criminal offense,
Indeed.
If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
Except what they're doing isn't a citizen's (note the apostrophe) arrest. In almost every state statute covering citizen's arrests, one of the requirements is that you turn over the arrested person to law enforcement for prosecution. The concept isn't that any joe citizen on the street can start executing his own style of vigilante justice, but rather that in cases where a police officer is not present a private citizen may act to prevent the carrying out of a crime - but as soon as is feasible the arrestee should be turned over to actual law enforcement.
What the RIAA is doing in this case is harassing people who happen to be breaking the law, and I think the way in which they are choosing to pursue is of dubious legality. I wouldn't be surprised if they find themselves on the other end of a lawsuit in the near future over this.
fuck you.
...and it is legal.
/don't shoot the messenger
I see many on here saying it is illegal for them to take the property of someone else. Not necessarily. My brother works with a very popular rock band. One of the other guys with them obtains -- I believe from a local judge in the city of the venue they are playing -- a legal order that allows the band to confiscate any unlicensed merchandise with the band's name or logo on it, as well as bootlegged CD's.
My guess is the RIAA street team has a similar document or legal backing to do the same thing.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
I'm only familiar with the term "orthogonal" in a math context. What do you mean by the sentence:
"If they represented themselves as police officers then they are guilty of a criminal offense, which is completely orthogonal to the confiscation."
It's the same sense of the word. Consider representing your self as a police officer as a vector (call it RPO) of social/ethical concerns, and likewise confiscation (call it CONF). He's saying that RPO dot CONF equals zero; in other words, that issues raised by one are not raised by the other or--to the extent that they are--the ways in which they are raised cancel out overall.
-- MarkusQ
P.S. A less formal way of looking at it: if you were to change the extent to which they were guilty of either PRO or CONF, the change would have no effect on the magnitude of their guilt with regard to the other offense.
Hi folks. Jason Schultz from EFF here. Saw these comments and yes, I was misquoted and honestly, somewhat mislead about what I was commenting on. I've posted the details about what I said and what I meant on my blog.
Actually this does raise an intersing point for those working for the RIAA and acting as a security force. I wonder if these guys know what they are getting themselves into. They potentially could get shot at because after all they are going after criminals in some cases. What if there is a priracy ring that is also involved in guns and drugs? I would think that playing ATF, FBI or DEA could get them in a world of trouble. Someone might juist start shooting when a jacket with some letters on it appears. It doesn't matter what the letters are. They could also end up blowing other sting or surveillance that real law enforcement is involved in. Maybe the RIAA is not techinically breaking the law but it seems like that it is going to cause nothing but trouble.
Speaking as someone who is licensed and has done private security work (the test strictly quizzes you on the legal specifics of performing a citizen's arrest), anyone can place anyone else under citizen's arrest for any crime that they have witnessed. Not just violent crimes, but property damage or even trespass. The perpetrator can only be forcefully restrained in violent situations; otherwise, if they refuse to be placed under citizen's arrest, they cannot be held against their will.
The arresting citizen (or security officer, in my case) then must sign the arrest report; this is the crucial point that prevents a private citizen from wantonly placing others under citizen's arrest, because if you are unwilling to sign the arrest report, then you are liable for false imprisonment, kidnapping, etc. Once you sign the report, though, in the eyes of the law it is no different from a police or parole officer had conducting the arrest.