Ammo For Sale

« « On federal CCW | Home | The three schools of Glock » »

Live free or what?

In New Hampshire comes something hella lame:

The state Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that the government can keep and destroy more than 500 CDs taken from Michael Cohen, owner of Pitchfork Records in Concord, in 2003 even though the state failed to prove that a single disk was illegal.

Cohen was arrested for attempting to sell bootleg recordings. But the police case collapsed when it turned out that most of the recordings were made legally. Police dropped six of the seven charges, and Cohen went to trial on one charge. He beat it after the judge concluded that the recording was legal.

However, the police refused to return Cohen’s CDs. In the state Supreme Court’s Tuesday ruling, Chief Justice John Broderick, writing for the majority, reasoned so poorly that it appeared as if he’d made up his mind ahead of time.

Update: In comments, Tom notes there’s more to the story:

After beating the criminal charges, Cohen asked for all of his music back, saying he wanted it for his personal collection, not for his store’s sale bins. In doing so, he acknowledged that there were bootlegs among them and that selling those would be illegal, according to court records.

Well, there wasn’t enough to prove that in a court of law so I’d say give him his stuff back. Your thoughts?

7 Responses to “Live free or what?”

  1. tgirsch Says:

    The part they don’t tell you is here:

    After beating the criminal charges, Cohen asked for all of his music back, saying he wanted it for his personal collection, not for his store’s sale bins. In doing so, he acknowledged that there were bootlegs among them and that selling those would be illegal, according to court records.

    and:

    “State statute allows them to be disposed of as the court sees fit,”Fuller said. “But because these are contraband, I can’t imagine anything would happen except for destruction.”

    If the guy wanted his CDs back, it was pretty stupid (one might say “hella lame”) for him to admit to the court that they were bootlegged. If state statutes allow for confiscated contraband to be destroyed, I’m not sure where the foul is.

  2. Xrlq Says:

    I agree with Tom, if the guy admitted in open court that the recordings were bootlegs, it’s tough to fault the court for not letting him have them back. Did O.J. get the glove back, too?

  3. Justin Buist Says:

    Errmm…”bootleg” generally implies that the item is for sale. It’s absolutely, postively, undeniably illegal to sell unauthorized copies of CD’s. However, it’s prefectly legal to make backup copies of CDs that you own for your own private use.

    Admission of not being able to sell them really doesn’t say anything in and of itself.

  4. Standard Mischief Says:

    tgirsch, I read this as:

    After beating the criminal charges, Cohen asked for all of his music back, saying he wanted it for his personal collection, not for his store’s sale bins. In doing so, in the opinion of the state’s attorney, he acknowledged that there were bootlegs among them and that selling those would be illegal, according to court records.

    They are pretty sure he did something wrong but they wholly and utterly failed to prove that in court. Because he was acquitted, (unless they use the standard mischief trick of trying him at a different level of government) double jeopardy prevents his further punishment for any crime. I will note that the link you provided said that the state dropped (thus not acquitted) six of the charges.

    We don’t just randomly deny people their property rights and stuff, there’s a procedure in place. Due process again. A nation of laws and not men.

  5. robert Says:

    When folks who work for prosecutors, police, and courts like the ones in this story watch an old CD of Robin Hood, Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot”, or even Spielburgs “Saving Private Ryan”, I wonder which side they pull for? Surely they always are for civil and legal authority and against the brigands, rebels, and invaders.

    The Sherrif on Nottingham HAS to be some kind of patron saint of government employees these days…doesn’t he?

    God forbid they ever watch “Open Range” and see Costner and Duval placking legally elected public officials with those cowboy loads! They’d drive right into Hollywood and BUST those guys!

  6. tgirsch Says:

    Justin:

    If he owned originals, there never would have been a court case in the first place. And to me, a “bootleg” is any illegally-made recording, irrespective of whether or not it’s for sale. Perhaps the colloquial differs from the legalistic, I wouldn’t know.

    SM:

    That’s not how I read it at all. Nowhere does it say that the prosecutor thinks the guy admitted there were bootlegs. As I read it, he acknowledged, as a matter of public record, that some of them were. Probably figured he had nothing to lose, given that he had already beat the criminal rap.

  7. Standard Mischief Says:

    tgirsch,

    That’s not how I read it at all…

    It’s certainly open to interpertation. The guy isn’t ever quoted. It doesn’t say, for instance:

    In doing so, he acknowledged that “there were bootlegs among them and that selling those would be illegal”, according to court records.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives