It wasn't illegal, but you're guilty anyway!

Status
Not open for further replies.
That may have worked to keep him out of jail, but it then makes it bloody difficult to go back to the po-leece and ask for the CD's back.
Click to expand...

True.

While I do think there are a lot of problems with current siezure decisions, I can't see how this particular one could have been decided differently, or how it will have far-reaching negative impact, now that I've considered it more.
 
Or maybe you made it yourself for sale and illegally infringed on the Winchester trademark for the boxes and headstamps.
Click to expand...
They would have to demonstrate that it was not made by Winchester before this could go anywhere. If you claim it's true Winchester factory ammunition and packaging they have the burden of proof that it is not in fact a Winchester product. If they can't do that then they have absolutely no case.

In this particular case there was no dispute that the CDs were unauthorized copies(bootlegs) and therefore whether or not he produced them or commited any crime in posessing them the discs themselves are contraband due to the fact that were illegally produced.

If you look at the CDs in my car they are all copies and WMA discs. I don't put originals in the car because they seem to get ruined on a regular basis. If the police were to seize them I would claim fair use under the licence agreement and could produce the originals or the receipts from the music download service I use(Rhapsody). I am fairly confident that a jury won't see a single copy of about a dozen or so CDs as a bootlegging operation.
 
My reading says of it says that, while Cohen couldn't be convicted of bootlegging CD's, the CD's were still bootleg and therefore still contraband. As contraband, they cannot be returned.
Click to expand...
Suddenly, my concern over this decision has lessened. Amazing what a little perspective will do.

So, let me make sure I have this right: the guy admitted that they were bootlegged copies. He did not claim 'fair use', so the police did not have to prove that he was violating any fair use provisions of various state or federal laws (as they would have to do if they, for instance, found a burned CD in your car). He completely conceded the fact that they were contraband, and fought the charges of distribution and/or counterfeiting, and won?

Under that set of facts, I cannot see why anyone would expect the state to give the stuff back. If he claimed it was all legit and none of it was counterfeit, I could see where the state should have to prove it to be otherwise...but in this instance he admitted they were illegal fakes, and merely contested the idea that he had counterfeited them.

As long as I have that correct, I have zero problems with this decision. *shrug*

Mike
 
Same thread on TFL linked to the ruling.

The guy who owned the CDs bought them from another person. That other person, then, violated the copyright laws and such. The CDs were therefore contraband.

The counterfeit money example is spot on.
 
It seems that I constantly repeat the same phrase as follows- The law is whatever some bozo in a black robe says it is- Apparently the written law means nothing and is open to complete disregard- Folks, if they want you, they're going to get you!
 
The simplest parallel would be this: The police found that your stereo and TV were stolen, but you showed that you were not a "fence", that you'd bought them at the swap meet, and didn't know they were stolen.

You might be found innocent of the charge of receiving stolen goods in a court of law, because you showed receipts and you showed that you'd bought the stuff in good faith, with no way of knowing it was stolen.

However, you wouldn't get the stuff back, because it's "hot."
 
I don't give a rats patoot what he did, what he may have done, or what he might have done in the future.

If there isn't proof in sufficient quantity and quality to convict him and he was found not guilty he should get his property back.

This is blatant theft and the police involved should be arrested for such and frankly the judges are just as guilty for allowing it. The state supreme court just declared open season on any and all privately owned property that there is even a hint may be illegal or the owner just might maybe someday do something illegal with it.

:fire:
 
Uh, guys, it's not his property, he has no legal claim to it as it is all contraband...this does not fall under fair use or anything else.

It's.
Not.
His.
Property.
To.
Claim.
Therefor.
He.
Has.
No.
Legal.
Right.
To.
It.
Thus.
It.
Should.
Not.
Be.
Returned.

Got it?
 
Pretty strange...Even one of the most powerful companies
in the world advise you to "back up your files"...Does this
mean that Mr.Gates is possibly breaking the law via his software
warnings ?
 
Except for the crazy DMCA, copyright law allows making copies of copyrighted works for certain fair uses. For example, if you make a copy of a page out of a text book to pass out to your high school biology class, that is ok, even though it would be illegal otherwise. It is for educational purposes, so fair use covers it. There are several categories for fair use, one of which is making copies for personal use. Hence, if I have a valuable book and I don't want it to get ruined while I read it, I can go make an copy of the whole thing, put the original away, and read the copy. Same with a cd. Same with computer software. (It gets weird with CDs and DVDs with copy protection and the DMCA, but hopefully that will get sorted out soon). So, no, Bill Gates is not doing anything bad telling you to back up your files, or your software. As long as its for personal use, you can do it.

In fact, you can even make limited numbers of copies for your friends and family. When cassette tapes first came out, the recording industry went nuts because they said everyone would copy LPs and then give them to everyone. The solution was to allow cassettes and recorders to be sold, but to build in a royalty on blank tapes to be paid to the recording industry. Same thing happened with VHS tapes, and I assume with blank CDs. The courts also ruled that if you made a copy of your favorite LP for your mom, that was ok too. Just so long as you weren't making 100 copies, and that you didn't SELL them. Selling copies is always a no-no.

This guy admitted these were bootleg, so they were a violation to begin with. He does not get the stuff back, period.

The comments above on my trademark example are correct, but you didn't read my whole post. I made the facts in my hypothetical the same as this case, and said that I admitted that Winchester did not give its consent for the trademark use. Therefore, the government would not need to prove it since my testimony established that the consent was not given. Hence, it is a trademark violation and the fake goods are contraband.

I was also much lest concerned about this case once I heard the facts. Amazing how editorial writers seem to gloss over stuff, huh.
 
That happened to me once.

I tried to talk my way out of a traffic ticket in a backwoods Arkansas court. After I'd poked holes in the cop's testimony, the judge -verbatim- said, "I don't think you done what he said you done, but I'm gonna find you guilty anyhow."

What we need is more laws to prevent judges from miscarrying justice from the bench. And we need a strong leader to enforce the laws. And a judiciary that won't let the enforcers get away with mistreating us. That should work real good.
 
So was this guy a counterfeiter, a pirate, or a bootlegger? I guess the question's academic, but there is a difference.
 
Indeed, the majority’s reasoning is chilling. The majority concedes that no crime or illegal act was proven, but allows the confiscation anyway by concluding that a crime might have been committed. The majority used words such as “apparently,” “likely” and “would have” to describe the alleged illegal activity.
Click to expand...
The government WILL use this to take our firearms.:what:
 
If there isn't proof in sufficient quantity and quality to convict him and he was found not guilty he should get his property back.
Click to expand...

The guy who was not convicted was not the guy who made the CDs! He bought the CDs from someone else.

This is not a case of someone copying their own CDs in case they are stolen/lost/etc. This is a case of someone buying copied CDs. The buyer is not guilty of breaking copyright laws. But the CDs are illegal anyway.
 
I don't think this has any corrolation to firearms except maybe this. I buy a sawed off shotgun with a 14 inch barrel. I am unaware that the barrel is too short. They prosecute me for the sawed off shotgun, but the jury won't convict me. However, I am not going to get the illegal shotgun back, even though it is my property.
 
A better example might be counterfeit money.

If you go into a restaurant and unwittingly hand the waitress a fake $20, the police will be called if they catch it. Ultimately you will not be prosecuted for counterfeiting (assuming that you claim, very reasonably, that you got the bill in change at a gas station or somesuch and had no idea it was fake), but you're still out $20.

Mike
 
I'm more concerned with the part of the story where police are confiscating camcorders which may or may not shown them doing things they'd might not like Internal Affairs, press or other interested party to see.

Rick
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top