Comment Re:Citation Needed (Score 1) 208
+1 Masturbation Joke
There is a bit of a difference between leaving signs that you're away visible to anyone who happens to be passing your home, and actually broadcasting that information on the internet. More to the point, people who might otherwise take precautions, like getting a friend to pick up their mail while they're away on vacation, end up broadcasting the fact that they're away to the whole net-connected world and think nothing of it.
You're creating a false dichotomy where there need not be one. There's no difference between taking the precaution of having a friend pick up your mail and taking the precaution of not broadcasting your whereabouts to the entire fucking world
I just find it really hard to believe that if Miley Cyrus were to record a track on her own, upload it to her blog, and sell an unencumbered version of it for $1, she would make no profit. That cuts out graphic artists, distributors, agents, CEOs, secretaries, RIAA lawyers, brick and mortar stores, promotion companies, and marketers, and yet the product is the same.
As much as I loathe defending the labels, I have to take exception with this argument. I agree that right now Miley Cyrus could make a profit selling $1 tracks on her website. However, without her label spending a fair amount of money on marketing, she wouldn't be selling tracks since nobody would have heard of her (Okay, Miley's not the greatest example since her father is a celebrity, but you get the point).
The point is, as much as I agree that the labels' business model is outdated and harmful in many ways to both consumers and artists, the labels do serve some useful purposes, and aren't entirely irrelevant.
If they feel that their children are being exposed to viewpoints that they don't agree with, let them home school their kids or send them to a private school.
I highly doubt there are many parents who can afford the anywhere from ~$10,000 to $40,000 tuition fees per child, per year that don't already have their kids in private school
And if cops come calling they'd have a perfectly valid probable cause, namely a freshly arrested employee that you hired. If drugs were found on him, and at his house, then why not at work? If they don't have a search warrant it's only because it would be mighty stupid for a manager to say "no" to them. They'd just call your boss and the company loses two people for the price of one. No company can say "no" to a *reasonable* request of police. Besides, they can also arrest you for obstruction of justice or things like that, never charge though, so you only get to spend a night in jail, and then explain your actions to your boss again... good luck with that.
Since, as we're all well aware, the Fourth Amendment applies when police officers enter a corporation's place of business to search for evidence of crime, I'm really very curious where you're getting your information?
If the police do have probable cause to search the office, then they can simply apply for a search warrant. Failing to do so does not negate rights guaranteed by the Constitution.
I'd really like to see a citation of a case where a manager was arrested for exercising his right to refuse consent to an illegal search.
I don't want to be young again, I just don't want to get any older.
