digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Piracy is Now a "Public Nuisance" in Los Angeles County

arstechnica.com — After urging from the MPAA and RIAA, Los Angeles County agrees that piracy is a "public nuisance" and that buildings and equipment used to store or manufacture counterfeit discs can be seized.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Reddog_x2000, on 05/10/2008, -15/+109This is why I'm a libertarian. If you give the government a power, they will find a way to abuse it. It doesn't matter how benign or legitimate that power may seem on it's surface. Some public official will find a way to torture the definition of a term to serve either his/her own agenda, or the agenda of someone who's paying him/her off. That's why government should be kept as small as possible.
    • ha1f, on 05/10/2008, -21/+37But for once it seems like they actually have it right. They're going after the people who are stealing (yes, it's stealing) the material and then reselling it for a profit.
      • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -10/+42I don't care how many times you say it , telling everyone that copying files is stealing does not make it true, you're a damn fool.

        The pirates out there who resell for a profit deserve a swift kick in the ass though.
        But I'm afraid that this will set a dangerous precedent, allowing seizure of personal property because a private company wants it is wreckless.
        • theonlywizdum, on 05/10/2008, -7/+10RTFA
          "So can the county seize your house and computers just for downloading a couple of unauthorized tracks? Not exactly. In this case, "piracy" actually means "piracy," and it refers to the "manufacturing, distributing, selling, or possessing for sale of counterfeit goods, or recordings or audiovisual works which are improperly labeled under California Penal Code section 653w."
          • TheGuruStud, on 05/10/2008, -2/+24What happens when they say your two DVD burners are used for manufacturing pirated DVDs that you sell (even though you don't)?
            Or how about if they say you have a collection of hundreds of pirated movies and therefore are in violation of this law?
            Then they can take whatever they want from you.

            Has no one learned anything from the laws passed by the Bush Admin? There's a law to secretly lock away any terrorist. Not a big deal if they are a real terrorist. But the law is also worded so that you can be a terrorist, so they can lock you up, too, for no reason.

            Do not be naive. This is another rung on the ladder towards total control of your property (so that it becomes theirs if you get out of line).

            *sorry about grammar and punctuation*
          • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -5/+6I did RTFA.
            I didnt say I was scared that I was going to get in trouble for copying two or three songs.
            And if you'll read my post again I said I agreed that pirates who resell for profit are pretty much scum.
            But thanks for playing, you sure are observant.

            My concern is what TheGuruStud illustrated.
        • ha1f, on 05/10/2008, -22/+5Taking copy protected material and duplicating it without permission is, in fact, stealing. If you can't see that, then you need to get the ***** off your computer and get out into the real world, because you're a damn fool. There's a reason they call it PIRACY.
          • Ratteler, on 05/10/2008, -4/+10Denying the American people their Public Domain use of copyrighted material is TREASON!
          • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -4/+14Repeating the same thing over and over doesnt make it true.
            Stealing is when I take something from you, and you don't get it back or lose the original. Copying is Copying, Copying is not stealing.
          • KiraDnote, on 05/10/2008, -3/+12The reason they call it piracy is for it's propaganda value. In other words, if they say it's piracy often enough, some people begin to think it's true, and then they gain the power to have the government help them prevent the "theft" of their goods.
          • atarijedi, on 05/10/2008, -8/+4I agree with you ha1f, and I myself am a thief under this definition. If you take something that doesn't belong to you, without recompense, it is stealing. Even if it is something non-physical, such as music, or movies, or digital art, or an idea.

            If I came up with the idea for the Solar Panel, and I told you about it, then you went off an patented it, would it not be right to say that you STOLE my idea? or merely copied my idea? I would say stole, and I bet you would to.
          • jezsik, on 05/10/2008, -2/+6If your "thief" patented your idea, then yes, your idea was stolen because now you can't patent that idea. If the "thief" simply used your idea, enabling you to use your idea also, then you haven't lost anything, ergo no theft.
          • DamnMan, on 05/10/2008, -2/+4@Atarijedi

            Your solar panel analogy is flawed. him patenting your design causes you to loose your rights to it. The loss of the original. If on the other hand he copies your design builds his own solar panel to power just his own home then things get a whole lot grayer.

            How many people who watched Iron Man on the net would have ended up as asses in seats in a theater if not for the internet? Not me. I didn't care enough to spend 30 bucks to go to the movies. But I did have 2 hours to kill the other night and nothing to do. They lost no sale because of that. I either would have watched it for free on the net. Or I simply would not have watched it. To say they have a legal right to hold me accountable for a 'lost' sale that COULD have been? *****.
          • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4Your argument makes sense at first, but you're stretching too far When I copy a song, I'm not registering it with the US Patent office, then making a commercial product and selling it in stores.
        • cotaskmemalloc, on 05/10/2008, -9/+7Jesus christ, it's ***** theft. Stop trying to justify it.
          • mikelieman, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1I wanna see their properly paid-up PROPERTY TAX RECEIPTS on their "Intellectual Property" ***BEFORE*** they get any benefits paid for by those taxes -- like access to the legal system.

            They *do* have property-tax receipts, don't they?

        • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -4/+15No it's not, stop trying to make it. I'm not going to let you change the definition of the word copy.
          • cotaskmemalloc, on 05/10/2008, -7/+4That's your problem. You're too focused on the definition of copy. We're not talking about copying. We're not trying to change the definition of copy, dumbass. We're talking about the context the act of copying occurs within. If you copy a top secret document and give it to another nation, thats theft and you'll be charged with treason. You're not going to be charged for using the photocopier. If you copy a song and give it to another person, thats theft and you should be charged accordingly.
          • facelesscoward, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3...what? That's like saying if you shoot someone in the head, that's theft and you'll be charged with murder. Not all crimes are theft. Copying a top secret document and passing it off to another nation isn't theft unless you actually went in and stole the document. It's treason, and you'll be charged with treason. If you copy a song and give it to another person, that's violation of copyright law and you'll be charged accordingly. None of that stuff is theft.
          • cotaskmemalloc, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2facelesscoward: "That's like saying if you shoot someone in the head, that's theft and you'll be charged with murder"

            What the *****? How do you get that from my statement? It's not like saying that at all. But in fairness, you're right on one point, and I will change my argument because of that - it's not theft, it's copyright infringement. Just change 'theft' in my previous comments to 'infringement' and my point still stands, and asspants is still a wrong dumbass.
          • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -2/+5No, that's your problem. The context of the act of copying is you're copying and not stealing.
            Nothing is lost, so nothing is stolen. If you want to say that some artist is losing money, you're sadly mistaken.
            There's two arguments that have really been done to death, but i'll rehash it here so you can tell me where it's wrong.
            1. The people that steal music/software/movies would not have paid for them in the first place. And it's not justification but SOME of those people find something they think IS worth paying for that they have copied, actually do go out and buy it.

            2. Even if we could agree that copying == stealing, and want to call it stealing the only people that are really losing out here is the bigwig asshole sitting at the top of the record label might not be able to take his private jetliner to aruba this winter. And really? Boo-*****-hoo.

            You ARE trying to change the definition of copying.
          • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Ahhh, okay now you decide you will call it infringement, and THAT I can agree with you on.
      • benecere, on 05/10/2008, -2/+16No, it is, in fact, infringement. Infringement and theft are different offenses; it doesn't matter that you hold them as equal. One is a criminal offense and the other civil.

        If you do not pay your accountant, your attorney or your doctor, they may sue you, but they cannot have you arrested. Infringement falls under the same category. To call it "theft" is the word game of .the....AA's that is allowing them, somehow, to change law without bother with such details as going through actual legislative procedure. Saying something often enough seems to be enough to make it true. There is a lot of that going around these days in the former "United States of America"
      • rpgmaker, on 05/10/2008, -4/+9Sharing files over the web isn't stealing, it's SHARING. Selling those files, well, that's stealing.
        • benecere, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7Still infringement. Theft is the taking of a finite article and deprives its owner use of that article. Copyright violation is infringement; big copyright violation is big infringement; profiting from copyright violation is profiting from infringement. It never changes to theft unless the law changes it to theft. And oh my, if that happens, what will be next? Will we slowly slide back into having "debtor's prison"? I cannot see others who are limited to suing sitting back while the .....AA's are getting by without needing to do it. How many civil offenses will turn into criminal offenses. Why bother with lawsuits if you can just get the police to do it for you at public expense.

          Furthermore, actual theft is much easier proved since it involves a physical object. The record already indicates that the likelihood of being falsely accused of copyright violation is much higher than is reasonable and that the evidence is often flimsy. Add to that, the USA leading the world in jailed citizens and spending a fortune to do it; you find that making this a criminal offense just gets messier and messier.

          Now the confiscation of an accused person's property for copyright violation ----- THAT'S theft, since it is illegal to treat infringement criminally by current law and it involves depriving the property owner of its use. So, we have a criminal government working for a private entity's interest, impervious to written law AND at public expense. Do you see a problem here?
        • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3That's very insightful, I'm unsure as to why you're being dug down, maybe the too long; didnt read crowd is doing it.
        • yingjai, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1i think in order for him to get dugg up, he needs to write "***** RIAA" somewhere in the article. the other guy got over 50 diggs with just 2 words
      • Anpheus, on 05/10/2008, -8/+3To "steal," like many words in the dictionary, can have multiple meanings. This is a shocker to you all, I know. See what I did there, I used "shocker" to mean something other than to be electrocuted. It may "shock" you all to know that you can "steal" things without removing a physical item from someone else. In this case, the word, the verb to "steal," is meant as per the definition under the Princeton WordNet:
        * take without the owner's consent; "Someone stole my wallet on the train"; "This author stole entire paragraphs from my dissertation"

        Oh look, copyright infringement in the ***** definition. Source: http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=steal

        Case closed.
        • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3You can't close the case because some shill for the RIAA managed to get the internet dictionary for princeton to call it stealing. If I got them to say that herpes is the same as gonhorreah, would that make it true? No. The fact is that the number of people who consider copying as "stealing" is VERY few, and you're not going to change the opinion of the MANY by repeating the same ***** over and over. Pandora's box has been opened and it will never get closed again.
        • benecere, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2In case you might have failed to notice, a legal definition and a dictionary definition are not the same.

          Nothing changes the need to legislatively change the violation to the legal equivalent of "theft" to prosecute it as such; not doing so makes our entire system null. If you want to make it a criminal offense, then by all means lobby for a change of law. What you are arguing for now, however, is to make law meaningless.
        • phoomp, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Copying and sharing information is not "theft" until the courts or government define it as "theft"
        • Anpheus, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2None of the above realize that so long as we're calling it stealing, we're not using a legal term. Just like "murder" is differentiated by the law, so too are different ways of "stealing." There are certainly many ways to steal without hurting someone directly, and copyright infringement is one of those ways.

          But when we're having an interwebs discussion about what is and is not stealing... eh... you're not a lawyer, I'm not a lawyer, we're not using legal terms.

          I'm annoyed when people get offtrack about the real issues, the pros and cons of an attitude held like that of The Pirate Bay/piratbyran and instead argue petty semantics... incorrectly, I might add.

          Discuss the real ***** consequences of piracy, but the case is closed on whether or not pirating is stealing. You're taking something without permission. The question is, should we allow that in society? Does it help society to allow it some of the time? Etc. Ask real ***** questions not, "Is it stealing?" Yes, it is, it's taking, using, "borrowing" something without permission. If I take $20 from your wallet without your permission but make sure to put $20 back in it before you notice anything is wrong, did I steal from you? Yes, yes I did. Even though nothing of consequence happened, I would have stolen had I done that.

          ***** armchair lawyers here all of you.
          • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2
            "Ask real ***** questions not, "Is it stealing?" Yes, it is, it's taking"
            What the ***** are you saying here?


            Even with the $20 in the wallet thing you're biasing it towards your opinion instead of what it really is.

            You should have said it like this.
            "If I take a picture of a $20 dollar bill that's in your wallet is that stealing"
            that's more what it's like. nothing is being TAKEN

            and if you want to call me an armchair lawyer i'll call you a RIAA shill. suck it.

            0

          • Anpheus, on 05/12/2008, -0/+1Ok, so I produced a strawman. I apologize.

            Nevertheless, we should really, really have a discussion about whether or not this is legit. Can society function as anything but an oligarchy when copyright doesn't exist? NO. Think this through. Who has the greatest ability to profit from music distribution? The store that sells it. The person that gives it to you. Not the RIAA. And DEFINITELY not the artist. That's the problem! I hate the RIAA's legal tactics just as much as the next guy. It's despicable what they do, with so little evidence... But that's why copyright is a civil matter, not a criminal one. They should be going after the major bootleggers, not some grandma whose DSL box happened to use an IP address that someone else used to pirate music with earlier in the day. That's ridiculous.

            Copyright exists for reasonable purposes, it protects original artists and writers for their time investment in order to allow them to make a return off that. It's incredibly disappointing that it has been twisted by some corporations, such as Disney with their push for the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act. The use of copyright by large media conglomerations to avoid creating new material has damaged the reputation of the word copyright. Copyright is, rightfully, a bit of a dirty word in some circles. That's because it's been used in the wrong way, by the wrong people, and needlessly extended far beyond its original purpose. It no longer purports to encourage creativity, copyright now exists in order to actively damage it. Everything you've seen on TV produced by a major media corporation, even those images you saw when you were a toddler, are utterly and totally off limits to you creatively until some time after your children or your children's children die.

            That should be the content of the discussion, not... "Is it stealing?" Yes it is, the question is, should we change that. Under the law, it's stealing, it's a punishable offense. The law doesn't call everything like you or I call it, so they call it something technical. It's still stealing. The question isn't whether it is or isn't, but whether or not we should change that. If everyone on the internet would stop being so self-important and claiming they weren't stealing and instead tried to actively change copyright terms, we might have real progress.
          • phoomp, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1If copyright infringement is "theft", then why are copyright infringers not arrested for theft?
      • captZEEbo, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1it's arguably stealing. Here's a good link that explains further why intellectual property rights should be questioned:
        http://libertariannation.org/a/f31l1.html
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/10/2008, -38/+6This is a city government. I thought you dumbass libertarians only hated the feds.

      And read the ***** article.
      • metric7, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool.......
    • flashcraft, on 05/10/2008, -2/+22No, we dumbass Libertarians hate government corruption and abuse even at the city level. Pretty much any level really. Yep.
      • KiraDnote, on 05/10/2008, -20/+3So you would prefer that government didn't arrest people? Libertarians are fools.
        • asspants, on 05/10/2008, -1/+12That's a pretty MASSIVE stretch to say that because of dislike of government corruption at every level flashcraft doesnt want the government to arrest people peroid. Sounds like you've let mike savage cloud your judgement.
        • lamiaconfitor, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Most libertarians acknowledge a difference between "victim" and "victimless" crime. you are confusing libertarians with anarchists.
        • benecere, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Why do you extreme guys always do that? It's a formula you use where you make an argument with: "So you're saying......?" or "So you'd prefer.....?" and you always add something that the person decidedly did NOT say. It's annoying and doesn't add much to a discussion and now it's even cliche. So, why do you do that?
    • metric7, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Our corporate masters are losing money, they are not pleased.
  • chrgrose, on 05/10/2008, -14/+28Chuck norris walking down the road with a massive erection is a public nuisance.

    This is not chuck norris walking down the road with a massive erection..
    • marx2k, on 05/10/2008, -6/+2How about if it's pirated video encoded to DIVX burned to a CD of Chuck Norris walking down the road with a massive erection... the video obtained through torrents...
      • flashcraft, on 05/10/2008, -1/+0Not if it's obtained through torrents, no.
    • MasterGrief, on 05/10/2008, -1/+7Chuck Norris is out. I don't know what's in, but I think after the religious things that came out about Chuck, the internet kind of wanted to leave him alone.
      • jezsik, on 05/10/2008, -0/+6Yeah, but we're talking about the imaginary Chuck Norris, not that actor guy who plays Chuck Norris.
      • Pixelante, on 05/10/2008, -5/+0Like the Internet has any relevance or power. We've already seen how internet nerds get regularly ignored, derided and trampled upon by the real world.
    • Ratteler, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Chuck Norris hasn't been able to have an erection in decades... and was NEVER capable of a "massive" one.
    • jwoulf, on 05/10/2008, -0/+4The last time Chuck Norris walked down the street with an erection, over 2 billion dollars in property damage was done.
  • A11YND, on 05/10/2008, -11/+57So now because you download a few songs the LA board can take your home?


    Call me old-fashioned but that is just not fair.
    • TheSevenDuffs, on 05/10/2008, -3/+38From the Article:
      "So can the county seize your house and computers just for downloading a couple of unauthorized tracks? Not exactly. In this case, "piracy" actually means "piracy," and it refers to the "manufacturing, distributing, selling, or possessing for sale of counterfeit goods, or recordings or audiovisual works which are improperly labeled under California Penal Code section 653w.""
      • insllvn, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6"Not exactly." Not no, not exactly. Not yet. Nothing I read in the article shows they couldn't later start fining downloaders and confiscating hard drives and modems for violations. Well, nothing more than Ars' reassuring "Not exactly." Sure, it seems targeted at resellers, but the terms are purposefully vague.
      • 4321234, on 05/10/2008, -0/+8"Improperly labeled?" Does that mean with a sharpie, or if the DVD-R is just left blank is that improperly labeled as well? Did you notice the word "or" rather than "and". To me, that means if you burn a cd or movie for your personal use, they can seize your property.
      • Desidarius, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Piracy only means piracy while they haven't had the time to loosen up the meaning. Next thing you know they'll be trying to claim having blank cds/dvds and an internet connection qualifies as intent to pirate. Don't believe me? Look at some of the results of the war on drugs. If a person gets pulled over and has over $10k cash on them the police can seize it as drug money even if no sign of drugs are found in the vehicle. Or something more a little relative to this, cops finding someone with drugs on them and charging them as a drug dealer without any evidence that they ever sold drugs. (I've heard of stoners charged as dealers when the only thing that was found on them was a joint and a few dollars)
      • gsensel, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1LA Board won't , but the Feds might be able to!
        http://digg.com/tech_news/House_passes_bill_that_w ...
    • XXXXXXXXXXXXXX, on 05/10/2008, -10/+21Shut the ***** up and read the article.
      • marx2k, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1relax, it's Saturday
      • keviniskool, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3How long did it take you to come up with your username? I'm intrigued by its creativity.
      • Ratteler, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Post your address. I'll show YOU how to "shut up", traitor.
      • 4321234, on 05/10/2008, -2/+4You shut up. I read the article. And I googled "California Penal Code section 653w" and read the pdf. Got any cds or dvds with improper labels? You only need to have them on your property.
    • gsensel, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1LA BOard won't , but the Feds might be able to!
      http://digg.com/tech_news/Piracy_is_Now_a_Public_N ...
    • cliffski, on 05/11/2008, -1/+2stealing from the artist isn't fair either, but you don't give a *****, so why should they acre what happens to you?
      • A11YND, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1because a song is worth 99 Cents according to most sales of said song, a house on the other hand is worth infinitely more?
        By the way, I don't steal. I pay for my songs and burn them to improperly labeled CDs.
  • jdmcadam, on 05/10/2008, -2/+15Oh man! I was totally hoping this article was about rampant bands of high seas LARPers.
  • Shawshanksr, on 05/10/2008, -7/+62***** THE RIAA
    • ElbertF, on 05/10/2008, -2/+27LOUDER!

      ██████░██░░░░██░░░████░██░░░░██
      ██░░░░░██░░░░██░██░░░░░██░░██░░
      ████░░░██░░░░██░██░░░░░████░░░░
      ██░░░░░██░░░░██░██░░░░░██░░██░░
      ██░░░░░░░██████░░░████░██░░░░██
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ██░░░░░░██░████░░░░░██░░░░░██░░
      ████░░████░██░░██░██░░██░██░░██
      ██░░██░░██░████░░░██████░██████
      ██░░░░░░██░██░░░░░██░░██░██░░██
      ██░░░░░░██░██░░░░░██░░██░██░░██
      ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░
      ██████░░░████████░░░██░░░░░██░░
      ██░░██░░░░░░██░░░░██░░██░██░░██
      ████░░░░░░░░██░░░░██████░██████
      ██░░██░░░░░░██░░░░██░░██░██░░██
      ██░░░░██░████████░██░░██░██░░██
      • Pixelante, on 05/10/2008, -8/+0Yes. I'm sure this is going to help a lot.
        What happens when some big media corporation buys Digg?
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/10/2008, -5/+53The gangs are a "Public Nuisance" in Los Angeles too, yet the brave police chase these people peddling cds, and throw the book at them (police are whores for hire).
    Who cares if the public wants the gangs locked up first?
    • OddManRush, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3Living in LA myself, I know that the LAPD goes after gangs more than pirates. Even so much as to restrict the right of free assembly. Groups of young men more than 3 are illegal in some locations.
    • solid12345, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3The difference is pirates don't carry Uzis and Mac-11's.
    • Gutterpunk, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2Saying that they can now seize properties related to mass piracy doesn't mean that they will only do that from now on.
      But then again, anything anyone could say about he police will always be attacked by "freedom advocate" like you, so why bother.
  • RIPtechtv, on 05/10/2008, -6/+4I live on the LA county side but I am right on the boarder of LA and Orange county by about 5 minutes. Time to move the house to Orange County side.
    • jdmcadam, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1Snow boarder?
    • RIPtechtv, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3Sorry I am the suck at spelling. Anyways I try to buy things in Orange County whenver I can since they have a slightly lower sales tax. Sticking it to LA County. Also the city where I live part of it could become Orange County in a few year :).
    • cotaskmemalloc, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1Wow, way to be ***** mature about it.
  • lijamez, on 05/10/2008, -5/+87The MPAA and RIAA are a public nuisance.
    • whahaa, on 05/10/2008, -5/+6***** the LAPD!
    • ElbertF, on 05/10/2008, -5/+4▗█████ ██░░██ ░▗████ ██░▗██
      ██░░░░ ██░░██ ██▘░░░ ██░██
      ████░░ ██░░██ ██░░░░ ████▖
      ██░░░░ ██▖░██ ██▖░░░ ██░░██
      ██░░░░ ░▝████ ░▝████ ██░░██

      ▗█▖░▗█▖ ███▖░ ░▗██▖░ ░▗██▖
      ███░███ ██░██ ▗█░░█▖ ▗█░░█▖
      ██░█░██ ███▘░ ██████ ██████
      ██░░░██ ██░░░ ██░░██ ██░░██
      ██░░░██ ██░░░ ██░░██ ██░░██

      ▗███▖░ ██████ ░▗██▖░ ░▗██▖
      ██░░██ ░░██░░ ▗█░░█▖ ▗█░░█▖
      ████▖░ ░░██░░ ██████ ██████
      ██░░██ ░░██░░ ██░░██ ██░░██
      ██░░██ ██████ ██░░██ ██░░██
      • Pixelante, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1Isn't it funny that we can scream ***** THE RIAA or ***** THE MPAA ad nauseam, but it's them doing the *****, big time?
        • Gutterpunk, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1The MPAA and RIAA had to change their tactic quite a bit due to online "activists" (for lack of a better word) like this. So it's not funny, lets continue to do it!
          ***** THE MPAA, DOWN WITH THE RIAA!
    • drewlew, on 05/10/2008, -0/+1This comment took longer to show up than I would have expected.
  • GordonClass, on 05/10/2008, -1/+6This is LA home of the Movies is anyone really surprised that they would do this?
  • Tyrghast, on 05/10/2008, -5/+18Medical Mary-Jane = +1
    Developing Harsher Anti-Piracy Regulations = -9000
  • whatsupimphil, on 05/10/2008, -4/+18The MPAA is a public nuisance.
  • icemanex, on 05/10/2008, -5/+2They cant stop people downloading music, films and software so they target the counterfeit recording factories...i didnt know there were any unless they are talking about houses where kids are burning films to a cd for friends.
    You lose idiots, what your targetting will make no difference to our free sharing of data, paid for or not :)
  • ElAssoWipo, on 05/10/2008, -0/+28The definition of Piracy in the ordinance is bootlegging.

    You have to do it in exchange for money for this to apply.
    • insllvn, on 05/10/2008, -0/+2You are quite correct. While the legislative finding lists distribution, which could mean simply seeding a torrent, the definition of a public nuisance seems to be limited to those selling bootlegs.
  • taradisiac, on 05/10/2008, -5/+0Oh a new measure against piracy, how long will it take for people to figure out a way around it?
    • insllvn, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1I already figured it out, ignore it.
  • MadEnvoy, on 05/10/2008, -4/+28Keep your knickers on! This isn't about downloading, it's about actual piracy. When will people stop letting the RIAA/MPAA call them pirates for downloading. A pirate steals and resells for profit. What regular Joe's are doing is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Stop using the label "pirates" against yourselves.
    • Napalmhaze, on 05/10/2008, -4/+7awwww but it sounds so cool!!!!!!11!1oneone YAARRRRRR!!!!
    • UltraDavid, on 05/10/2008, -4/+3It was an epithet at first, but it's our term now. It no longer has a negative connotation for me.
      • cliffski, on 05/11/2008, -1/+1you need to grow a ***** sense of right and wrong then
    • sk11, on 05/10/2008, -5/+2Ironically, those people aren't pirates either. Pirates seize and steal cargo from ships, a crime not unlike bank robbery. Copying something and selling it for profit is a crime and immoral because you're making money from someone else's work. But it isn't piracy.
      • ArchangelZLT, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Despite I loathed the MPAA and RIAA, I must point out that piracy can be used as in "software piracy".
        New Oxford American Dictionary defines it as "the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work".
    • anononon, on 05/10/2008, -2/+4Yar har, fiddle di dee,
      Being a pirate is alright to be,
      Do what you want ‘cause a pirate is free,
      You are a pirate!
    • gmiley, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2I live in Southern Florida, if I were to bootleg tons of movies and music, would that make me a Pirate of the Caribbean? Arrrg!
    • badogg, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1I put on my robe and wizard hat

      HAARRRR!!
    • steelaz, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1copyrightinfringementbay.com
  • yujie, on 05/10/2008, -4/+15RIAA and MPAA = public nuisance and criminals
    • cliffski, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1whereas stealing music makes you a hero?
      ***** hypocrite
  • fludgesickles, on 05/10/2008, -3/+6LOL
    How long will they go to jail?
    http://digg.com/business_finance/Cash_Poor_States_ ...
    Cali is on that list =]
  • kirado4, on 05/10/2008, -3/+10kewl so if the MPAA or RIAA doesn't properly credit the contributors to albums and movies.. they can have their assets taken sweet... oh wait but they'll get away with it because there big companies..i

    "If the piracy was intentional, the property owner can be fined up to $1,000 for each "recording or audiovisual work whose cover, box, jacket, or label fails to accurately disclose the information regarding the manufacturer and the author, artist, performer, producer, programmer, or group." Damages can be trebled if the property owner is busted for the same offense within a two-year period."

    Disney intentionally broke copyright infringement on a Lion King song from a poor black South Africans artists family. Though the settled out of court eventually.
    • d05k, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Disney also copied "The Lion King" from the anime "Kimba the White Lion"
      • Pixelante, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1So what? Disney has enough money to gas your entire neighborhood, grind the bodies into chunks and spray them all over the city and get away with it.
        When you have enough money and political clout, you can walk in a nursery with a flamethrower and the orderlies will bring you more babies to torch. The strong (in this age the rich and powerful) eat the weak and ***** their remains down other weak people's throats.
      • hexydes, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Uhm, Disney built an entire empire partially based on taking classic children's stories and re-making them in their own style. Now, they would sue anyone who tried to do the same. How fortunate that copyright law didn't limit them when they were looking for story ideas. Too bad they have single-handedly destroyed the usefulness (to the public) of copyright law in the United States.
  • louiebaur, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1They should head up to the Santee Alley they would get allot of it stopped there its all out in the open and crazy piracy goes on now
  • AuriniDMJ, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1***** the IRAA. When are they going to wake up and smell the coffee? Realize that all of this ***** is nothing more than a sign that they're going about everything in the wrong way?
  • gabbycable, on 05/10/2008, -3/+1Arrrrrrrrgg, thus be piracy?!
  • twiztidsinz, on 05/10/2008, -5/+1In other news: All Best Buy stores operating in Los Angeles have been shut down.
    • STPZ, on 05/10/2008, -3/+0wasnt walmart in trouble for censoring movies without permission? quick SHUT 'EM ALL DOWN NOW...maybe some good can come from this...lil but some
  • JakeyG14, on 05/10/2008, -4/+5Make ***** (the metaphorical kind) cheaper and piracy will decrease substantially!! Until then, they can kiss my peachy ass if they think I'm gonna pay £15 for a DVD or £10 for a CD.

    I know the article talks about LA, but piracy filters through to us Brits in no time, and we're all in a global "***** being ripped off" union.
    • Pixelante, on 05/10/2008, -2/+0When ***** (the literal kind) will have some value, you and I will have our bungholes sealed and our ***** will belong to CRAP Corp.
    • hexydes, on 05/10/2008, -2/+1It's not just about cheaper. "Piracy" has benefits like being instantly accessible, basically unlimited ways to use the media, higher quality, released earlier, etc. Being free is just one extra addition, but you can't deny the fact that even if you had to pick paying $15 for a DVD or $15 for a high quality, instantly-available, use-however-you-want, available before the retail outlets digital copy...anyone that knows what to do with the digital copy would pick that method.

      The MPAA and RIAA are using piracy as a means to not have to keep up technologically. They had a great system going, where they controlled everything, rarely had to innovate in regards to distribution, and were basically printing money. Piracy is just the result of them ignoring technology for too long. Had they kept up, they would be competing against systems that also have to pay money. They dug their heels in for too long, and the result is that they now have to compete with a system that has no costs, and gives the content away for free.

      As always, they have no one to blame but themselves. Computers and the Internet changed the dynamics of just about every aspect of business in the 21st century. Everyone else had to adjust, these companies felt that they did not have to for whatever reason. This is just the price they're having to pay.
  • ChristBehemoth, on 05/10/2008, -4/+6***** the MPAA

    ***** the RIAA
  • UltraDavid, on 05/10/2008, -2/+6It's like they want to make the law as irrelevant to our generation as possible. Lawmakers: making activities our entire generation takes part in illegal, treating them as if they were nuisances, and making the penalties for them severe... that doesn't make us do them less, it just makes us hate you and the whole legal system even more.
  • SillyDigger, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2What if the counterfitter rents a space does this mean the owner loses his building?
  • Evilsnake, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2"manufacturing, distributing, selling, or possessing for sale of counterfeit goods, or recordings or audiovisual works which are improperly labeled under California Penal Code section 653w."

    Note the careful use of the word "or" throughout. Seems a bit murky to me...
  • Azselendor, on 05/10/2008, -4/+1Best Buy just got *****.
  • futureisours, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3Bahhh.. Individuals who pirate and wouldn't have purchased the software anyway not seem to be affected by this. This is more the illegal operations that mass counterfeit software and dvds that are the subject of this--which is a good thing as they use the funds for the illegal drug and arms trade.
  • SpectreFire, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3Apparently, people here have a hard time telling piracy apart from copyright infringement.
    • Evilsnake, on 05/10/2008, -0/+3Or they have a healthy distrust of the way the law defines piracy, or most things for that matter...
  • southwestUSA, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1some of you are smoking something, or you need a dictionary.

    or you should stop buying that stuff!

  • nuentendu, on 05/10/2008, -3/+3***** the RIAA.
  • BOFH2, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1They couldn't seize it before as maybe larceny or grand larceny?
  • megafrenzy, on 05/10/2008, -2/+10I live/work in LA county, I've seen bootleg CD/DVD for sale in some stores in Sun Valley, CA and people selling them on the street, outside of strip malls and in swap meets. I work in the movie busisness, so seeing that really bothers me. What is wrong with people wanting to get paid for their product? Screw these pirates. Its one thing to download a movie and watch it for free, its totally different when you start making a profit from someone elses HARD WORK.
    • cotaskmemalloc, on 05/10/2008, -2/+4Sadly, I bet you're going to be dugg down roundly for that. I agree with you.
      What is wrong with people wanting to get paid for their product? Nothing at all - although a good number of nutjobs here on digg feel they are perfectly entitled to not have to pay.
    • rodgerse, on 05/10/2008, -3/+0Stupid f*ck..ofcourse you don't support it, just like all the pirates here who only care about getting stuff for free and pretend its about "freedom" or "privacy"

      ..the truth is somewhere in the middle, but both sides are just about the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
    • gsensel, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1If th Feds let the RIAA have their way you will be no different!
      http://digg.com/tech_news/House_passes_bill_that_w ...
  • quanmadrid, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2I feel like this law discriminates against poor and undocumented (usually Mexican) people in Los Angeles who sell bootlegged DVDs in front of the Bank of Americas. Aren't there some white collar tax evaders the county should be going after instead of the guy selling poor quality 5 dollar dvds?
    • Ellipsys, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3So what you're saying is, poor illegal immigrants resort to another crime in order to get by? This isn't making a good argument for sympathy for either case. This law isn't racist, I'm sure if that the well-to-do, secretive Asian bootleggers (Admittedly, most bootleg movies are produced and sold by Chinese) will be punished as well for the same transgression. I agree with you that the penalty is unnecessarily harsh and diverts manpower from going after real criminals, but don't try to categorize it as a racial issue.
      • Corrosionx, on 05/10/2008, -1/+1That's not a crime. Who got deprived of property? No victim, no crime. It's called corpus delecti, look it up.
  • 4321234, on 05/10/2008, -3/+2Skooze me, but that ***** was already illegal.
  • CrushThemTorg, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3You know? I've bee a good boy, not downloading music or films illegally for a few years now. But this? This is silly. I'm gonna go download every copy of the Led Zeppelin discography just to be a part of the problem. I don't even like Zep that much, I just wanna be a dick.
  • jwoulf, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2This is why I label all my burned CD's as "linux"
  • Corrosionx, on 05/10/2008, -1/+4Is anyone going to sue the RIAA for being public nuisances soon? Seriously
  • KaivenTor, on 05/10/2008, -2/+3I fail to see how this nuisance is "Public", has anyone in the general public been hurt repeatedly by downloading? Are there programs for the abused? Is there a serious call for the police to intervene? The RIAA should not have control over the interests of the public at large, we do not answer to them, they should be answering to us as a business.
  • bincoder, on 05/10/2008, -1/+2Los Angeles is itself a public nuisance.
  • TheReport, on 05/10/2008, -2/+2Where is the more significant and prominent story of "The MPAA and the RIAA is Now a "Public Nuisance" across the world"?
  • Apocrypha, on 05/10/2008, -1/+3Uhm, yeah. Clearly the MPAA and the RIAA are the nuisances here. Someone downloading a song isn't a public nuisance. Suing people with little to no proof they've actually done anything wrong is clearly a public nuisance.
    As I've said before though, politicians are some of the stupidest people on the planet no matter how smart they think they are. Put them in a group and they become dumb as a stump.
  • yuutomo, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1I think that's backwards it's RIAA and MPAA that are the "public nuisance".
  • AvangionQ, on 05/11/2008, -0/+1This seems almost laughable, but that it got pushed through LAPD just shows how much clout the MPAA still has in California, despite their attempts to rewrite the law to push forth their own agenda ... once again, I have to remind the MPAA that angering your consumer base with bullying tactics and lawsuits won't improve your profit margins -- selling your movies to a hostile audience will prove counterproductive and will likely push away your customers to any available competitors, such as the very pirates you're trying to expunge ...
  • Ragingidiot, on 05/11/2008, -0/+0"substantially interferes with the interest of the public in the quality of life and community peace, lawful commerce in the county, property values, and is detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare of the county's citizens, its businesses, and its visitors." !?
    did i accidentily click a link directed to "teenage gangsters abound"-story?
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.