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 $758,000,' says The Oregonian. But this is merely the tiny tip of an iceberg of absolutely staggering dimensions, an example of the extent coming in a GrayZone report slugged RIAA Anti-Piracy Seizure Information."
Maybe because its a civil matter and not criminal?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Copyright infringement is a civil issue, not a criminal issue. I can understand if a town or city decides to use their resources to "clean up the streets," but the outcry of this article seems to be about using local police (paid by taxpayers) for what should be private investigation (paid by the RIAA/copyright holder).
What difference does it make? If copyright were a justifiable concept, the copyright holders would have just as much right to prohibit personal copying as commercial copying. On the other hand, since copyright isn't a valid concept then there is no more justification for going after so-called "counterfeiters" than there is for prosecuting private infringers.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
It's entirely reasonable to presume that all music and movies that were being sold were copyrighted by *an entity other than the sellers* who had *not authorized that sale*, and the work was not in the public domain.
How do you know that it's not Creative Commons or public domain material? One of these cases was tipped off by an angry girlfriend.
So because you think something shouldn't be a criminal matter, it isn't
Democracies are supposed to work that way. Laws should follow morals rather than morals following law. People are put in jail when they outrage the public. I'll settle for repealing retroactive copyright extensions instead of retroactively jailing executives of the MAFIAA companies. Those caught bribing public officials don't get off so easy. Deal?
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
This is yet another step in Slashdot's pro-piracy campaign. Its goal is to make pirates feel better about themselves for ripping artists off. By never mentioning the artists in any of these articles, their existence is gradually pushed out of people's minds so that it feels like you're not pirating artists' music--you're pirating the RIAA's music. And because the RIAA is portrayed as evil because they dare go after lawbreakers infringing on their rights (the nerve!), it's okay, right?
In truth, you're ripping artists off. Real human beings who willingly signed contracts with record labels because labels have superior marketing and distribution channels as well as promotional abilities to make sure your album has a chance to sell. Pirates don't want to think about the artists, so instead we're given more loopy, anti-corporate bullshit about how bad the RIAA supposedly is because they shut down infringers--which is exactly what Slashdotters were calling for in 2000 during the Napster lawsuits.
That's right, everyone said they should go after individual infringers. So why has everyone changed their stance once the RIAA finally started doing that? Because nobody thought they could pull it off--lots of comments were made about how it would be unenforceable. In truth, you guys were just comforting yourselves that piracy would continue to thrive, and you could continue to get stuff for free that you didn't work or pay for. You were throwing out the "individual infringers" remark to portray yourselves as being in favor of combatting piracy while secretly hoping it would survive.
Fuck that. Piracy sucks. You guys bitch and complain when GPL code is "stolen." You call on the FSF to sue people all the time. But when the RIAA shuts down piracy rings or sends letters to people they caught infringing? Boo hoo, the evil RIAA is at it again!
I wonder how many of you would work for a boss who withheld your paycheck because he decided to use the code you wrote without paying you for it. After all, it's not "theft"--he's not taking physical property from you, right? I'm sure John Carmack and other important Slashdot geeks are oh-so-happy for you to be taking their money.
Suck it up and admit what you do. You make sure artists don't get paid. You presume "someone else" will pay them for it through t-shirts, concerts, or whatever goofy justifications you've concocted in your minds to ease your moral concerns.
"Sufferin' succotash."