RIAA doesn’t like the 4th either

Well, it looks like the recent issues with the fourth amendment and protections versus search & seizure has come to the attention of the RIAA, who has decided they’d really like to get in on some of that constitution-violating, as is so often their wont.

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.

As we’ve seen repeatedly, Obama is the RIAA’s man, so if necessary I’m sure they can count on him to back this for them. (I still laugh at remembering the internet hipsters who seemed to think that Obama’s election would mean a T1 line with full torrent speed in every house and free pot to smoke everyday.)

But the RIAA’s justification for pushing for these warrantless searches?

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.”

So. Just to make that clear. The RIAA itself is saying that the government has eroded the fourth amendment to the point that grabbing a firehose and spraying down the mud isn’t going to hurt at this point. I mean, this is not an exaggeration, that is actually what they’re saying. “Well, you already let the government boss you around and get in your business. Why not some more?”

“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.”

Those are the actual words of Marcus Cohen, RIAA executive. That is actually what he thinks will allay people’s fears. “Oh, we’ll just walk in and do what we like. What’s the big deal about that?” Nothing, if you’re the hero of a friggin’ console RPG and are used to wandering into random peoples’ homes and rifling through their belongings for stuff you need.

And despite the fact that it’s essentially admitted to be unconstitutional, I’m sure it will come as an utter shock to all of you that they nevertheless have the outright support of Democrat senator Alex Padilla behind them and it’s already passed multiple committees. A Democrat not giving a shit about the constitution, and pushing through unconstitutional laws? A California Democrat, at that? I know I was shaken to my core by such revelations.

Apparently we on the right have spent so much time worrying about the Second that we didn’t notice the Fourth was wounded until it was down and surrounded by hungry wolves. Or maybe we’re to blame for letting it take its licks in the first place because we wound up “okay” with it getting a few kicks when it served the “greater good”. But whoever put it in its current position, it’s pretty clear that the left has smelled blood. The Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, was put there to outline and limit the government’s power, and as the Democrats have shown (and occasionally stated, when they got a little too honest), “limits on government power” is a dirty phrase considered somewhere on par with “your mother sucks cocks in Hell”. If they can effectively render one amendment from the bill of rights null and void, then that means the other ones are fair game. It would be precedent, just like the RIAA is using precedent to say “It’s already been broken, why not break it more?”

Now the question becomes, are we going to fight off the wolves, or just hope that there’s something left when they’re done eating?

Comments are closed.

  1. sahrab

    Or, some of us have been bitching about the erosion of the fourth, with the Constitutional Bastardization that is the “Patriot Act”. When we voiced our objections there were typically two objections (sometimes mixed together), it was either:

    The Google response – There isnt any reason to object, if your not doing anything wrong.

    “The Siege”, ala Posse Comitatus, response – necessary to protect you from harm.

    I guess we can add a third response.

    Unamed Poster on Right Thinking response – Mistakes will happen, but if you survive, you can take them to court for resourse

    Thumb up 0

  2. richtaylor365

    Unamed Poster on Right Thinking response – Mistakes will happen, but if you survive, you can take them to court for resourse

    {sigh} someone is having difficulty with their reading comprehension skills (just like how they got Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada ass backwards), well, I tried.

    Good post Rann, and if anything it bolsters what my position has been all along, that just because we have written Constitutional protections, does not mean that there will never be attempts to breech those same protections, either nefariously like what the RIAA is doing here, or through honest mistakes like ,”OK, I had probable cause for the stop, now can I search just what is in plain site or can I go into the glovebox? what about the trunk?, Oh shit, I forgot those other 27 court cases that have redefined the Four Amendment on what is and what is not permitted”.

    As with all of our constitutional protections, just because we have them does not mean they will remain inviolate, remaining ever vigilant for over reaches and abuses, nothing has changed.

    Thumb up 0

  3. InsipiD

    This is where Jay-Z and myself are in total agreement: I know my rights, so you gonna need a warrant fo’ that. I don’t have a problem with them searching a pressing plant, it’s homes that they need to stay out of.

    Thumb up 0

  4. sahrab

    Jesus are your nipples sesnsitive as well?

    You did post this?

    What the court actually said is that in Indiana if you are on the business end of either a perceived (more on that in a minute) illegal search or contact, or an actual (lawfully adjudicated) illegal search or contact, it is best to not physically resist, but to exercise your legal right to resist at a later time within the court process. Now you can disagree with the principle behind this but what the judges were saying was that it is safer for everyone involved (both the victims and the cops) if you save your constitutionally protected resistance (they are not taking these away from you) for future legal action, do you see the distinction?

    Because later on, in another post you posted this

    And as I’ve said at least a half dozen times now, becasue we as humans are fallible, mistakes will invariably be made, that just because you make a law against an action or insert an amendment into the Constitution granting a right, they only legislate the action or the right, those things can still be broken.

    You even created a thread expanding on this thought, with the Guy who sued the Police and won. In your mind, this is exoneration that the Fourth Amendment works. In my mind, and others, this is an example of Law Enfrocement being overly zealous. Which would have been protected by the Constitution if people werent belittling the actions by claiming a day in court rectified everything.

    I take it your some form of Law Enforcement, so its understandable you’d rather have a Law Abiding Citizens right mistakenly violated than have that same Law Abiding Citizen defend his rights at the risk of an officer being shot or killed.

    (just like how they got Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada ass backwards)

    Its not that clear now is it? Both sides were defended by Hiibel.

    Hibel states a police officer is in the clear for asking for identification of a suspect. – Point for Crowley (officer in Gates boondoggle)

    Hibel also states an officer is not allowed to go on a fishing explanation – Point for Gates who was at home, breaking no laws.

    Thumb up 0

  5. Rann *

    Pressing plant is still someone’s private property. They should still require a warrant to have law enforcement officials just waltz in and help themselves to looking at or handling whatever they like.

    The very argument that “It’s okay, it’s just a business” is what the RIAA is using as justification for this. But it’s still someone’s property, they should be entitled to the protections of the fourth amendment, without some assumption that they’re breaking the law, or the expectation that at any random moment cops could come busting into the place, grabbing up random product to test for legal compliance.

    Thumb up 2

  6. InsipiD

    Ok, I agree, but it is business, so if it’s a part of the contract that the pressing plant has, no biggie. It should be. In any business, I’d expect some trust but verify. The business of actually pressing the discs probably does need oversight to prevent extra copies and the like. If the record companies get their money’s worth out of RIAA and need some checks done at plant level, I can see that’s what RIAA might need to do.

    Thumb up 0

  7. Rann *

    But that’s the thing, they’re not talking about sending in pre-approved RIAA employees or anything to the pressing plants. They’re talking about sending in uniformed police officers. It’s not a matter of “Contract-agreed random inspections, and if we find something hinky we cut off our contract and then pursue possible legal action”, it’s a matter of “A bunch of cops come marching in at random in the middle of the day, and if they find something hinky someone gets the cuffs slapped on them”.

    Thumb up 1

  8. richtaylor365

    First regarding Hiibel, you said:

    Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of the state of Nevada – Citizens have a constitutional right to refuse to tell police their names

    This is wrong and just the opposite of what the court said:

    , held that statutes requiring suspects to identify themselves during police investigations did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the rubric of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), the minimal intrusion on a suspect’s privacy, and the legitimate need of law enforcement officers to quickly dispel suspicion that an individual is engaged in criminal activity, justified requiring a suspect to identify himself.

    emphasis mine

    No, they do not have a constitutional right to refuse to tell the police their names. Under the “stop and identify” provision, you have no such right, all other questions would fall under the Miranda provision, but NOT your identity.

    Regarding all of the other stuff, I’ve covered just about everything, what else is there to discuss?

    Are there some over zealous cops that overstep their duties? well DUH, we read about them getting fired every day, this is not news. Would I prefer that there is never ever a mistake made when it comes to police entering homes? you betcha, just as I would prefer that you never ever make a mistake in whatever business you do, mistakes are bad (another DUH). Would I prefer that no one ever gets hurt during any police contact? yes, other than that, we are just rehashing.

    Thumb up 0

  9. Seattle Outcast

    As someone that deals with government intrusion and regulation on a daily basis, I can say this: unless you ARE the government or have a contractual right to show up and poke around, you aren’t getting past security without a fistfight.

    FAA and FDA still need to be escorted around a company unless they’ve shown up with the cops and have a warrant – just showing up and wandering around on a fishing expedition isn’t allowed.

    Thumb up 0

  10. Manwhore

    As if right on cue, Rann, an Indiana sheriff <a href="” target=”_blank”> lauds the idea of trampling on the fourth.

    According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

    The law is for thee, not for me, he’s essentially saying.

    Thumb up 0