Slashdot Mirror
New California Law Bans Anonymous Media File Sharing
An anonymous reader writes "It looks like California will soon be requiring emails to share files. The story from SF Gate has a few details as Ahnold goes on his signing spree in Sacramento. 'Aiding the industry that helped him gain worldwide fame, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation Tuesday aimed at discouraging online piracy by requiring anyone disseminating movies or music on the Internet to disclose their e-mail address.' Also he signed a bill to limit the sale of video games."
Well, if they sponsor it, it's gotta be good for the Governator and what's good for him is good for California. You got something to say about that, Girly-man?
the Motion Picture Association of America, which says it loses $3.5 billion annually to piracy
Hollywood accounting, ya gotta love it, babe.
Governor and video game star Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a measure aimed at curbing sales of violent video games to children. ..
Some of Schwarzenegger's movies were spun off into video games that bear the governor's likeness - although they are not among the most violent under the industry's ratings system.
Sure is helpful to have connections to those who determine what violent is. He might want to consider a ban on showing caskets of returning service personnel from Iraq, as that could upset impressionable television viewers.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Screw this. I am not going to obey this law. Tough. Go ahead and arrest me or fine me or whatever, when I get out/pay fines, I'll go right back to doing what I was going.
Disclosure: I don't live in California.
I don't get it? Either he doesn't get it either or he wasn't paying attention while he was signing these bills. ...Anyone think he was busy pumping?
UID 1000000 is just around the corner.
its either billg@microsoft.com
.com ?:) )
or
president@whitehouse.gov (or was it
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
Alright. Go mailinator go!
Free XBox, PS2
ipiratemusic@hotmail.com
anonymimityismyfriend@hotmail.com
youcantfindme@hotmail.com
Need I continue?
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Set up a free email account and never check it.
9 2d bf5-9adf5287fc
http://gmail.google.com/gmail/a-df1a8a3530-9d27
I am willing to bet it will be struck down as inhibiting legitimate anonymous free speech.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
I mean, I really really don't it. It's already illegal share movies. Now in order for them to allow me to commit an illegal act I have to share my email address?
What's next: "Before you rob a store you must inform the local police of your intentions"?
I've just signed legislation that'll outlaw Russia forever. We'll begin bombing in five minutes.
Here's my email.
slashdot.to.jlbraun@xoxy.net
Time to sign up for an @something.ru or the like.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
The web hosting biz in CA will be picking up and moving elsewhere.
He will find like othr dimwitted politicians that the Internet was founded onsharing and any law to curtail that will be unenforcible
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Sure, stratjakt@hotmail.com. Come get me RIAA!
How could they expect to enforce this in other states, let alone other nations?
What's with California? Do they think they're the worlds government or something?
Yet, all the new internet laws seem to be popping up in California. That place is the land of the batshit crazy freaks.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Is it just me, or is it a violation of your rights(as an American)? I can think of situations where I could be sharing perfectly legal media, and would not want my email address/identity tied to it. For example, if I produced a documentary about how bad the company I work for is, I should be able to disperse that to those who please. There would most definitely be reprecussions if it was found out who made it, and this bill would just make it all the easier.
I've seen a lot more files from this user: illbeback@mailinator.com
ahnold@california.gov
Does Californica not realize that the Internet will treat this as damage, and route around it? You can't make your tiny part of the Internet have different rules than the rest of the Internet. It just doesn't work. Unenforceable.
Spam is more or less illegal. I still get plenty of offers to enlarge my penis every day. How does this help anything?
I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood
So you have to provide an email address if you're "disseminating" movies/music/etc. What purpose does that serve other than to direct the MPAA straight to your door?
"I make people like me... WITH VIOLENCE!" - ATHF
I doubt that even accomplishes anything. But if it does what it is intended to do, inform parents/consumers, more power to them. Parents should be aware when they are buying San Andreas for their kid.
As far as the email is concerned? Ludicrously unenforceable, so I'm not paying attention to it.
Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.
if i caatch you shaaareing fiiles, i will torminate you! raaagaaa!!! raaaaah!
What email address does Apple get to use? Or Real? Or Microsoft?
he signed a law that finally made necrophilia a crime in California. Who cares about file sharing...
When the casket is a 'rockin
Don't come a 'knockin
Monstar L
Right, *no* one will be able to distribute *anything* anonymously if they have to provide an EMAIL address...
After all, an EMAIL address is as solid an ID as a fingerprint!
Signed, arnoldschwarzeneggar245573@hotmail.com
What is to prevent people from using a onetime email address? I have a few domains that have unlimited email addresses, what is to prevent me from "renting" out email address space for one time usage? Signup anonymously.
Puhleeze.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
So if I want to share files I must sign up for a free hotmail account that I never intend to use? What good is that supposed to do? Sounds like another example of legislating something that looks good on paper, but is completely non-functional in the real world. How might this law be used? "We can't get them on copyright infringement, so we will get them on not publicizing their email address."
You've had to provide your e-mail address when connecting to so-called "anonymous" FTP servers for years. What's the big deal?
Oh, wait, you mean nobody actually checks what you put in there? Well, what's the use of that!? Oh...
Is this good enough?
You Stupid pawn of "big business". Good thing you cannot run for President.
I don't see how this can be enforcable in any practical way. I mean, who is to say that you are giving a valid e-mail address in the first place. And furthermore, even if you do give a valid e-mail address, does that help to connect an internet identity to a indivudal, any more than an IP does?
I'm also worried about the fact that they are trying to limit anonymity. That is one of the staples of the entire concept of the Internet, isn't it?
Nothing disturbs me more than blind loyalism towards some unrealistic and over-idealistic notion of one's nationality.
Wouldn't it be even harder to get a person's identity from their email address then from just their IP? Now the RIAA would have to contact Yahoo, get all the IPs that were logged with that email address, and then contact all of the connected ISPs. Or is this really just an attempt to spam file sharers?
Hotmail, Yahoo, Gmail, and other web providers announced a huge increase in the number of subscribers in California.
You can read the text of the filesharing bill (now law) at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-1550/s b_1506_bill_20040823_enrolled.html
Let parents make the decision about what games their children play.
That's why I think this bill is a good idea. If you let kids walk in and buy the most violent games, their parents may not know what's going on. Those are the parents that make me sick. If you make the parents buy it for their kids, then they're forced to take responsibility for it. We already have too many idiots claiming that video games are making their children violent; instead of parents taking responsibility, they blame the games. This just makes sure that they're involved.
me@privacy.net through me9@privacy.net
I'll be back? Hopefully he never will be reelected again.
politics corrupts everybody as you can clearly see. arnold even did soft-core-porn movies back in his young days, and now he is corrupted by money, power and greedieness.
I only share packets.
Now free/anonymous email services will become much more popular, and perhaps more people will start registering private domains for custom email. Or, most probably, nothing will change and nobody will pay attention to this law. Next story, please?
Step 2) laugh and don't use it anyway
Step 3) don't be an ass pirate, leave bittorrent running.
^_^
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
This seems like it's making the same old assumptions. That *if* it's music or video, then the copyright *must* be owned by RIAA/MPAA. This is all about control, not copyrights.
If I own the copyright (say because I produced it), or I have the permission of the copyright owner (which may be, gasp, somebody besides the **AA); then WHY in the world can't I do with it what I want? I certainly can give somebody a copy of a book in secrety; or even leave a copy of a newspaper on my chair when I'm done reading it (which is anonymous distribution).
Oh, and what about PUBLIC DOMAIN media files?
See, this whole thing still seems to be the big media industries trying to shut out independent artisits and producers of content. The whole piracy thing is just a smokescreen; the excuse. What they really want is to make it illegal or impossible for anybody besides them to "traffic" in media.
So what if I'm distributing something that I own the copyright to, but I don't want my identity tied to it? Should I not have that right?
How long do you think it'll take before they try to extend this law to any writing or 'creative' work whatsoever?
FTA: Governor and video game star Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a measure aimed at curbing sales of violent video games to children.
Slashdot: Also he signed a bill to limit the sale of video games.
There seems to be a huge difference between these statements. Can you spot it?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
To quote Timothy of Slashdot, "Also he signed a bill to limit the sale of video games."
To quote the linked article, "AB 1793, by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, requires stores to post signs and offer brochures about the industry's game-rating system."
My email address? A real one, even? No problem! Get'cher red hot MP3s from your friendly local root@localhost! I might even reply to emails sent to that address, for a particularly appropriately-scoped definition of "localhost".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
This is a bill against whistle-blowing.
Do you think that it is good to identify yourself when posting video of Scientology-like freakazoids harassing lawful protestors?
Maybe someone has got some good footage of the Terminator groping and the lawyers want to shut him or her up?
"i'll be back"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
If you are sharing content illegally, ie breaking federal copyright laws, then why the hell would be inclined to make it even easier? This is functionally identical to gun registration. How many criminals actually register their guns? If they can't get one off the street, they just get them by stealing from law abiding citizens.
I can appreciate trying to cut back on massive copyright infringement, but this.... this is just bullshit. Whoever at the MPAA/RIAA paid for this should be fired for wasting their employers' money. No one who is breaking the law and "causing them to lose money" is going to follow this law. Well maybe some, the kind that would have probably been caught anyway.
If it be true that California leads the way for our country, then Arnold has ushered in a new wave of stupidity into American politics. Doesn't he have better things to do, that not coincidentally would help these lobby groups' retainers more, like cut down the overall size of the CA state government, streamline its laws, eliminate red tape, cut taxes, cut expenditures and find innovative ways to save money?
Here's a novel idea for the RIAA/MPAA/BSA: instead of wasting your money on bullshit like this, lobby for tax and spending cuts. Get rid of the income tax, when the people aren't taxed at 20-50%, they have discressionary income out their asses and that's when people buy your products.
In other words, stop subsidizing the Republicrats and send the check to Reason and the Libertarian Party.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Is probably not constitutional. You can't stop a willing group of participants from engaging in anonymous conversation with each other.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Wow too bad that isn't what the article says, only requires store to post about ratings and offer borchures. What's the problem? Sounds like the only ones bitchin are kids that don't want mom and dad to know that that Postal 2 games isn't about delivering mail....... How is that limiting the sale of videogames? I wasn't aware that borchures LIMIT sales? How is this limiting? To be intellectually honest this should have read at least: ..bill to limit the sale of violent video games...
;) Think about it Electronic Mails? It makes no sense! If Emails makes it into a dictionary I'm switching from english to esperanto.
:)
Speaking of mail btw it's mail, not mails. You don't go to you mail box and get your mails. So why do people insist on saying EMAILS. EMAILS IS NOT A WORD
Bye
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
Anything I make (or anything anyone else makes) is automatically copyrighted by the person or organization that made it. Does this mean I can't post to /. without showing my email, because that would be sharing copyrighted media? Is the only legal anonymous transfer one that only is composed of public domain works? Ug... good thing this isn't anywhere near enforcable.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
What next? The lawmakers will require users to have an IP address to share files on the internet.
Us liberals are such idiots thinking that people should be able to do what they want. We just want to let people marry whomever they want, smoke whatever they want, say whatever they want. I'm glad that you have helped me find my way. Sincerely, Music Sharer - god@heaven.com
So now to distribute movies, you simply have to create a hotmail account, even though you never have to actually log in and check your mail? Just wait 30 days, Microsoft automatically deletes any Cease and Desist letters, and you're home free! I'm not quite clear on what this law accomplishes...
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
n/t
California, who, knowing that a particular recording or audiovisual
work is commercial, knowingly electronically disseminates all or
substantially all of that commercial recording or audiovisual work to
more than 10 other people without disclosing his or her e-mail
address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding
one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Basically, it has to be commercial. And I'm sure the law could not be applied if the work was being distributed with permission.
Hell, even I was worried, until I actually read the law itself. But now I'm not so worried. Plus, if you can keep your torrents to less than 10 people, this doesn't apply anyway =P
Upon challenge, they'll have to show a demonstratable threat to the "common good" (citizenry, not studios) that is caused by anonymous emails used for P2P software registration. That is a big, if inedffective, attempt to reduce the rights of people to privacy and a court will want them to show that (1) anonymous email registration causes more harm than good for citizens of California (2) legit email registration will not cause more harm than good (email harvesting spam-bots come to mind).
-- I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
* Who is the email provided to?
* How is the email to be provided?
* Is this only for legal files haring? (I would assume so)
* How are email addresses verified?
* If the file sharing app has to provide a way to advertise an email, does this make app incapable of this illegal?
* Are FTP and websites affected by this law?
* What if I don't have an email address?
* What if my address is with Yahoo? Will my information be required to be given to lawyers by Yahoo or whomever my ISP is?
* How did this law get passed?
LS
There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
That's nice, but it leaves a lot of unanswered questions.
Which of my several e-mail addresses must I disclose?
And for how long after the file transfer takes place must the address remain valid?
How often, if ever, am I required to check for messages?
And does the state impose any particular requirements on what kinds of filters I can apply to my incoming mail?
If I record a protest song and choose to distribute it anonymously (perhaps to avoid retribution by the state), am I prohibited from doing that?
Can I write a letter or produce a film and distribute it anonymously? How about if I use a pseudonym?
I'd like to actually read this law. I find it difficult to imagine that such a law could possibly stand up to any sort of scrutiny in the courts.
Another clueless law from the clueless pols.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
If everybody on peer to peer networks was required to give out their real email address freely, the spammers would be able to go to town with e-mail lists that they would *know* to be real.
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
You don't spell it "copywrite", do you?
Dear Arnold, We slashdotters ask that you do some real geeky/interesting thing instead of asking for email addresses.Its so lame.That way slashdotters could have some solid topic to comment about.
Peace.
P.S:TIII was also not techy.It was boring.
Who is you Scientific Advisor BTW?
Hey, if you can spell "Schwarzeneggar" correctly, then you must be the real deal!
California, the land of the Fruits and Nuts ...
T3, but it's violence for good which is Ok, right?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Sure, it may be popular, but it's not like needing a driver's license to drive a car. Email, popular as it may be, is just a service on the internet, which you may or may not use. Not everyone has an email address.
From DailyHaiuk.com.
I wonder if this is going to apply to public domain stuff? He's got some video at his website:
Here and here.
This stuff should be public domain by CA law. Also, if I don't give you my email, are those href's up there considered "disseminating"?
-dameron
The correct term is "Free as in Speach"
The grass is only greener, if you don't take care of your own lawn.
The real effect is to continue down the road of criminalizing the civil tort of copyright infringement, without actually changing *federal* copyright law.
History:n umber=sb_1506&sess=CUR&house=S
5 0/sb_1506_cfa_20040820_131207_sen_floor.html
5 0/sb_1506_bill_20040823_enrolled.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_
Senate analysis:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-15
Text of bill (HTML):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-15
except he didn't, it's Schwarzenigger
What? Nothing signed for or said about medical marijuana? Arnold can have my email address so long as I can have my joint!
Maybe you should RTFA before commenting on it. According to the article you are linking to, the bill was NOT to limit the sales of video games, but instead to: AB 1793, by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, requires stores to post signs and offer brochures about the industry's game-rating system. The article actually suggests that maybe concerns from Auhnuld's office were the ones that got the bill watered down in the first place.
What ever happened to a person's constitutionally protected right not to incriminate themselves? I'm pretty sure such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional.
Keith D.
Email address used for file sharing?
* asdf@asdf.com
* schwartzenegger@california.gov
* sit@home.org
* eat@joes.com
* cowboyneal@slashdot.org
I cant help it, but most of the bills he signed seemed reasonable and the ones he vetoed were indeed silly. Biased press?
Having to provide an email adress to contact your when you provide a service on the net (that is offering binary files) is also reasonable. In fact it is already a law in several european countries.
Sure. they can have my email address. It's the following and if you're lucky, it will fit in the form. It actually exists, the longest email address which you can get here
g hijklmn opqrstuvwxyzabcdefghijk.com
Here Ahnold, I am not a crook
nixonator@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyzabcdef
root@localhost is mine, as are safety@localhost, sc@me and test@none!!!!!
Yeah, right.
if they can prove you did it, then it wasn't anonymous. If they can't, then you can't be found guilty. Who the hell thought up this law?
What do you want to bet you're going to have to opt out of receiving "special offers" and crap when you sign up to trade a file.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
... it's not illegal to share movies. It's illegal to publish someone else's property that you don't have rights to.
The misconception that movie and music files are always owned by big business is at the root of the problem, and this legislation is about reinforcing that misconception in the public eye.
These are just a frigging file types. Any file type can hold someone else's property. The emphasis on these two types here demonstrates industry money paving a road over legal sense and social responsibility in government.
And it demonstrates a society asleep at the wheel when it's that blatant and (essentially) nobody notices.
Boycott would be the answer, but the sad thing is I'm already boycotting commercial software, TV, movie, media, and record industries about 1000 times over for every law they've bribed their way into existence. The only industry left that I can support is the porn industry.
_______
2B1ASK1
wasn't such a good idea. He is acting like a dumbass now. So now since Arnold has so concerned with bringing business to Calif, what is going to say when all the web hosting companies pack up and move.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
Isn't it Armhold Musclehoggen?
End the FUD
Wow.. yet another piece of crap legislation. When are they going to learn that measures like these will not work?
What is funny/sad/scary is that if the MPAA/RIAA were medical care providers and used these same philosophy in care that they do in their current business, they would have been sued out of existence a long time ago because of all the mal-practice suits they'd lose. They simply try the same thing over and over again.
Anonymous Cowards generally receive no replies because you're a coward and I'm a bitch
"His "Signing Spree" is helping the film industry make more money to make better films."
I dont think the film industry needs more money to make better films. For the past 20 years movies coming out of hollywood have been on a steady slope downwards, about 98% of the good movies that have come out in the past few years have not come from LA. If sharing movies over the internet ends up causing the demise of the over bloated film industry, i say good riddance.
God forbid movies go back to being artistic instead of the two hour long commercials that they are now.
I welcome all Californians, or any American at that, to come on up to my house in Canada and download all the music they'd like while we share a cold Kokanee beer with a dash of FREEDOM. cheers! - SD
Hardly. Making sure the consumer is given enough information to make informed buying decisions is one of the few really useful purposes of government. This is just an extension of "truth in labelling".
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
So... if one is using an anonymous file sharing program, how will they who it is? It's anonymous. If they can discover who it is, that is proof that is isn't anonymous, therefore you broke no laws.
"Any application for the rental or use of state-owned property or equipment provided to the liaison shall be promptly provided to the head of the agency, department, or commission having jurisdiction over the property for approval or disapproval;) so that they can request the rental/and or use of any state property."
"during the production of a motion picture pursuant to a permit, the agency, department, or commission representative shall be available for telephone consultation with the Commission's staff after office hours and on weekends in the event that consultation or assistance regarding the use of state-owned property or equipment is needed;"
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-15-04
Nicceee.....
I wonder how many employees the high tech industry employs. You think over 250,000? Oh yea, we'll need Larry Elison as govenor to get support there.
How can I put my real e-mail address if I don't even have one in the first place ? That's stupid.
So, if I want to distribute documents critical of the government I must give the government my email address making it possible to track me down and hurt me? I smell a constitutional issue.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
This guy is a republican and he's LIMITING the number of video games that can be sold in his state? WTF?
I thought that the reps were allways about business?
Read the bill:
/. headline says A doesn't mean the content says A.
1.Provides that any person, except a minor, located in California who, knowing that a particular recording or audiovisual work is commercial, knowingly electronically disseminates all or substantially all of that recording or work without disclosing his/her e-mail address and the title of the recording or work, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to a year in county jail.
So what's the problem? If it's legit why would you care?
2. Provides that if a minor violates the above provision, he/she shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $250. Any minor who commits a third or subsequent violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or both the fine and imprisonment.
It still is up to the DA to choose to prosecute. I see no problem.
3. Provides that upon conviction for a violation of this section, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the court shall order the permanent deletion or destruction of any electronic file containing a commercial recording or audiovisual work, the dissemination of which was the basis of the violation. The provisions do not apply to the copyright owner or to a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner.
Duh.
4. Does not apply to a person who electronically disseminates a commercial recording or audiovisual work (a) to his/her immediate family or within a network accessible only to individuals in that person's immediate household, or (b) where the copyright owner has "given permission [for the] work to be freely disseminated electronically by or to anyone without limitation."
So this doesn't apply if the author gives you permission. Big deal AND provides protection for multiple PCs in a house. Sounds good so far.
5. Defines "audiovisual work" as an electronic or physical embodiment of motion pictures, television programs, video or computer games, or other audiovisual presentations that consist of related images that are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices.
Blah Blah definitions here...
6. Defines "commercial recording or audiovisual work" as a recording or audiovisual work that the copyright owner has made or intends to make available for sale, rental, or for performance or exhibition to the public.
This seems reasonable.
7. Provides that a recording or audiovisual work may be commercial regardless of whether the disseminator seeks commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Protects unreleased works. Just because I don't plan on selling that sex video does give you the right to distribute it.
8. Defines electronic dissemination as initiating a transmission of, making available, or otherwise offering, a commercial recording or audiovisual work for distribution on the Internet or other digital network.
Key word INITIATING. A passive distributor (ISP, P2P "middle man", etc.) is protected. Only the active sender is a target.
9. Defines "e-mail address" as a valid e-mail address, or the valid e-mail address of the holder of the account from which the dissemination took place.
Again if it's legit this is simply providing a point of contact so questions can be asked. Doesn't have to be an address with your name. root@provider.com would work just fine.
If you read the bills and quit listening to others you find out these laws are as "far out" as they seem. CBS taught us that just because the news says A doesn't mean A is true. Just because the
-=[ Who Is John Galt? ]=-
How come necrophilia was ever *legal* in California?
This is a technology issue, and he's a politician.
He just doesn't get it.
Nor does his staff / advisors.
This rule is seldom untrue.
The sad thing is paying the governor and legislatures salaries while they craft this trash then pass it, then have the EFF or some schmuck spend to fight it and burn all that time. Remember these things next election, which is right around the corner (legislature).
What next, screening of Intrastate email by the RIAA and MPAA? I can't send a personal mp3 or mpeg to a friend without signing it?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
It does not say anything about them being able to trace you with the e-mail.
So if I make music or a movie and wish to distribute it anonymously, I can't? (At least, I don't see anything in the article limiting the restriction to sharing of copyrighted material with limited redistribution licenses.)
Once again, RIAA/MPAA are trying to make new laws to legislate their outdated, un-needed roles as media distributers and make it harder on those of us who produce and distribute media independently. Somewhat more chillingly, this also would prevent people distributing their political protest songs or movies from doing so anonymously: and I think everyone can at least agree that's a problem.
All's true that is mistrusted
So now sharing content without permission is realy, really, more illegaller than it was before.
Do they really think that people who are already breaking a few laws care about this legislation?
AND to share my own home movies or an indie film that I produce, requires me to submit to a thorough spamming and possible MPAA scrutiny.
Great, thanks for that Arnie.
If tyranny and oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. - James Madison
http://4.78.57.43.nyud.net:8090/ogrish-dot-com-jac k-hensley-beheading-video.wmv
jesus this world is so sad and sick. when will this madness finally end and people stop hating and killing each other. on any sides?
http://4.78.57.43.nyud.net:8090/ogrish-dot-com-jac k-hensley-beheading-video.wmv
What the bill actually requires people to reveal is their "true name and address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work. "
If anyone wished to make an example of a California resident flagrantly breaching this law, might I suggest Apple Computer of 1, Infinite loop, who are failing to reveal the title of everything in the iTunes shop that is maked 'untitled'. At $2,500 per violation, they should get a multi million dollar fine. (disclaimer - I'm outside the US and therefore can't get into the US iTunes store to check this)
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
My address is joe@mailinator.com
"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities." -- Prof. Dumbledore
I noticed that the article highlighted a couple of rather reasonable-sounding ones, and presented them in a positive light. Hmm.
I wonder about the other 80 or so bills which are now law. Does anybody know?
Basically, after cutting a deal with Enron before his election, I think it is highly unlikely that Arnold is a man with anybody's interests other than his own at heart. --And all in the wake of the CA energy scandal, (which the capitalists defended from the get-go; Nice job guys! Enron is the logical end result of greed-based policy. Did you learn anything?)
If Bush hasn't been crowned "Dictator For Life" by 2008, then I'll be pretty spooked about Arnold taking the throne.
-FL
But he has made no secret of his opposition to the online sharing of copyrighted material. Last week he signed an executive order prohibiting state employees from using software designed for file sharing.
Hmmm, I would love to see how that one is worded. Since the internet only really works based off file sharing, That ban ought to include most windows OSes, most Linux Distros, software such as Mozilla, Netscape Navigator, IE, IIS, Apache and even stupid junk like MSN Messenger, ICQ, and a few MILLION other programs.
(standard rant about stupid politicians)
OK, now that that is out of the way, here is a way to make an example of Ah-nuld's silly legislation: Look up the exact wording of the legislation. Chances are they tried to describe the programs rather than explicitly name them. Then sue the state because state agency X,Y, and Z are using software that falls under the law. After a few rounds of write ups in the 'oddly enough' section of Reuters and court filings, the law will get voted off the books. (I'm sorry mr Swartzheneckher, but the DMV is ENTIRELY shut down by your law. The voters aren't too happy, either...)
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
Unenforcable.
XML Database
root@127.0.0.1
Probably won't, but it certainly gets rid of the damned excuses of "I didn't know that game was violent!" or the like.
Now we (or the EFF) can say: "The game was clearly marked as being for adults, and if that was confusing for you, the store you bought the game at had a sign to explain this to you. So if you're too lazy to take an active role in parenting your own damned kids, don't expect us to do it for you."
In other words, it solves the supposed problem without trouncing our civil liberties. And if it doesn't solve the problem, the people who complain have no one to blame but themselves.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I can use this email address: I_take_the_fifth@so_screw_you.com that way I cannot incriminate myself, right??
===== "Every head is a different world so don't invade mine you FREAK!" smartSAGA said
for anyone who wants to download movies and music from me:
my email address is fuarnie@hotmail.com
that is all
...as requiring a government-issued ID to travel on an airplane to combat terrorism. No terrorist has ever had a government-issued ID, and email accounts are a 100% reliable way to pin-point someone by geographic location. sarcasm */
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it's just a goddamned piece of paper!" - George W. Bush Nov. 2005
Is there another law requiring anyone who uses the internet in california to have an email address?
Revolutions are never about freedom or justice. They're about who's going to be top dog. -- Kilgore Trout
You can't necessarily leave your newspaper on the seat when you're done. At least not if the newspaper companies have a say.
Metro-North railroad (the commuter lines into NYC) now consider leaving a paper on your seat as "littering" and are talking about fines and revocation of the monthly passes of violators. When you get to Grand Central station there are specially designed bins to throw your used paper into. They are locked and were supplied by the New York Times so you cannot reach in and get a used paper. And if you somehow do, the transit police are instructed to treat it as theft and arrest you.
Of course you can *hand* the paper to someone, they don't seem to have that one covered (yet).
...BITTORRENT? Sorry, I didn't think the protocol needed one. Who's going to enforce this change? Is BT even covered? Also, does this cover USENET?
Interesting but ultimately stupid law.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
Who said this bill has anything to do with *illegal* distribution? Knoppix includes several media files that come under free licenses (which makes them commercial, and therefore subject to this law, unlike, say, Grateful Dead concert recordings, which are also freely distributable, but only non-commercially). In one fell swoop, the distribution of Knoppix in California would seem to have been made illegal (unless you include your email address with each copy, which is clearly an unreasonable burden).
Section 1(a) and 1(c) of the text of the bill except anyone who distributes to 10 or fewer people, or who already owns or is licensed to distribute the matierial.
It also only applies if the matieral is commercial in nature.
Interestingly, its possible for a person diseminating illegally not to have an email address at all... what do they do then? Remember BBS Systems?
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
If you do this you will probably/hopefully end up in court and you might go to jail. Don't sue me if that happens. I'm not a lawer, etc.
g alco de
1. Use a digital cam corder to film yourself saying
"Only girlymen sign laws that are later shown to be unconstitutional. This movie is released under the Creative Commons No Derivs1.0 license. The text of the license is located at
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/nd/1.0/le
2. Post the movie to the internet without supplying an email address.
3. Go to the police/DA and turn yourself in.
4 ???
Some things are more important than an animated rat
Remember hotmail can ( and does ) track the IP address used to setup and access the email account.
IP tracks back to your ISP, which ( again, its been shown due to the RIAA suits ) can be tracked back to the user..
More over then that, if they can prove you were trying to hide, it could be considered evasion of the law.. So you get hit with 2 crimes.. Yippe!
Between this, and outright banning of 50 cal firearms, the man is an idiot and should be tossed out of office..
Thankfully i dont live in california, well actually i refuse too, due to their twisted concept of the constitution..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Its time to start encrypting file sharing packets, then they can look at the data all they want.
I've got two words for ya: Anonymous Proxy...
"Is it just me, or is it a violation of your rights (as an American)?"
Whew! I'm glad Slashdot doesn't require me to sign in before posting insightful commentary.
New laws need to be enacted that criminalize: 1) Robbing a bank without leaving a copy of your driver's license 2) Burglarizing a home without first obtaining a Burglarly License from the State of California 3) Removing your fingerprints from the scene of a crime 4) Failure to confess
" (5) "E-mail address" means a valid e-mail address, or the valid e-mail address of the holder of the account from which the dissemination took place."
Now the term "valid" has got me thinking. As has been mentioned, "root@localhost" is certainly valid. There must also be some "see-no-evil" outfit willing to supply you with a VALID email address, but would be uncooperative to any US authority attempting to determine actual real-life identity from it.
So, if YOU know of such an outfit, let us know, so we can remain within the boundaries of the law! ;-0
That law is no longer applicable thanks to the 1976 "Controlled Substances Act", or something of the sort. Now it's just plain illegal, even if states were to issue tax stamps (as Arizona used to do).
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
Here's a nice quote from the bill:
who knows that a particular recording or audiovisual work is commercial, to knowingly electronically disseminate all or substantially all of that commercial recording or audiovisual work to more than 10 other people without disclosing his or her e-mail address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work
Back to the questions...
Is this only for legal files sharing?
Actually, its for commercial audio/visual recordings only. That seems to mean a work with an audio or visual component to it. Plain text works are not included.
IANAL, but it also implies that the work is copyrighted, and that someone has a commercial interest in the work
c (2) If the copyright owner, or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner, of a commercial recording or audiovisual work has explicitly given permission for all or substantially all of that recording or audiovisual work to be freely disseminated electronically by or to anyone without limitation.
there you go - if you are the copyright owner, the law does not apply.
If the file sharing app has to provide a way to advertise an email, does this make app incapable of this illegal?
I can't think of a file sharing program that doesn't also let you share (in some way) text files. Even if they aren't found by a search, you'd still be sharing that information for someone who looks for it appropriately.
Are FTP and websites affected by this law?
Yes.
That's all I can help with...
actually, the following are legal email addresses:
root@localhost
Administrator@localhost
webmaster@your-hostname-without-a-TLD
The law is so vague that it didn't specify what a valid e-mail address is. Should have reference something like
RFC 831 - Simple Mail Transport Protocol
or more importantly, what the email syntax SHOULD BE
RFC 822 - Standard for the format of ARPA Internet text messages
This bill will get thrown out of court easily but only AFTER the EFF expends additional money due to our overpaid legislators' technologically-clueless ineptitudes.
Get with the program, EFF lobbyists.
Does this law ban putting your own music up on a webpage with some free-redistribution licence?
"Does Californica not realize that the Internet will treat this as damage, and route around it? "
That reminds me. How's that routing around, "caps", "port blocks" and "bandwith limits" as damage coming along?
Just what I was thinking.
Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org
Wouldn't this law apply to all users who use Windows or anything with open shares as well, considering that is "file sharing"?
Talking about the "signing spree", I do believe is going to be legal now to purchase needles and syringes in CA without a prescription. Hopefully the spreading rate of HIV and hepatites will be affected a bit by this.
Timothy didn't say that, the "anonymous reader" did. Get your facts straight.
Try reading the law that was actually enacted
Once again the republicans demonstrate why they are EXACTLY as bad as the Democrats in intruding into our lives and making government BIGGER, not SMALLER. Disgusting.
Their copyright is predicated on the understanding that it will be returned to the public domain which is actually understood to own the work. The fact that a person can now live their whole life without seeing a single work enter the public domain, means that the bargain struck has not been kept. And so the public will, "law of the jungle" style, take back their inherent rights. Which include the right to copy and dissiminate works.
They are simply asserting what rights the Constitution of the world's oldest and greatest republic says inately belongs to them. What could be more lawful?
It applies to commercial distribution, not copyright as a whole.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
This will cause more crime than it will prevent
When whois info on the spyware makers get's out hooo boy time for a lynching!
If you trade on-line and get caught, all you are going to lose is money (could be alot, but still just money), unless you are a large scale illegal distributor (with clear monetary gains).
This law make is possible now to JAIL people who are sharing on-line!!! That is not just bad, it is friggin' CRAZY!!!
I can't believe naive Californians are going to take it up in the a@# like this...
This post written under Gentoo-linux with an SCO IP license.
Does Californica not realize that the Internet will treat this as damage, and route around it?
Considering the fact that until recently the majority of packets on the internet either originated or terminated in California, I sincerly invite you to try routing around CA.
The benefit of running the state that contains Silicon Valley (and the tech centers in LA and San Diego) is that you get to exert a significant impact on the internet, whether the rest of the internet likes it or not.
Exactly. Too many people have connected "download" and "music" with "piracy". This sounds like it would also apply to legitimate files that people are sharing, which the government has no reason to regulate.
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
If your email address is with a non-US entity, the DoJ can go swivel.
s .helgrim.com email address, provided free here in Ireland, contact me through my site.
Therefore, if anybody wanst a prestigous yourname@the.prosecutor.has.herpes.and.a.leaky.as
I'd love to see a video from the courtroom as the charges are read...
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
...but it said I had to give my e-mail address so that it could anonymously share the article's html file with me.
Here's how it used to work:
- The RIAA finds a music sharer's IP address.
- The RIAA pays a lawyer to sue the sharer.
- The sharer settles the lawsuit for an amount of money (which may or may not be enough to pay the costs of steps 1 and 2).
- Hopefully, the sharer will be afraid, and will tell all her friends never to use Kazaa again. (RIAA: yay!)
- Most likely, the sharer hates the RIAA and will also tell her friends to buy directly from independent artists (RIAA: oops)
- ???
- Profit!
Here's how it works now:- The RIAA finds a music sharer's IP address.
- The RIAA tips off the California cops, who send an official-looking form letter to the sharer with a stern warning: you didn't label those shared files with a proper email address! So now you're a criminal! Reform your evil ways, or Arnold will "be back" for YOU!
- Now, the sharer might be smart enough to realize that attaching an anonymous Hotmail address to her shared files won't make them any more traceable then they were already. And she might understand that copyright violations are not criminal acts, so California can't prosecute them.
- Most likely, the sharer hates California and will also tell her friends that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a dickweed. (RIAA: who cares? Politicians are cheap and disposable!)
- Since our music sharer has never heard of the RIAA and has no idea that they are behind all of this, she may well buy some $27 CDs next Christmas.
- Profit!
Nobody has to be prosecuted for this law to help the RIAA. (And that's a good thing, because California doesn't have the money to keep their current prison system running, let alone prosecute file sharers.) The law doesn't even have to be constitutional to help the RIAA. Indeed, if I were the RIAA, I would pray that this never gets tested in court - if it gets thrown out, as it likely will, then its threat value becomes worthless.But she probably won't. She will probably see a stern official letter from a California cop, freak out, and tell all her friends never to use Kazaa again. (RIAA: yay!)
It only affects media files, right? Hello, uuencode.
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
It is NOT illegal to share movies and music..
Its illegal to share media files that are prohibited from distribution by their ( copyright ) license holders.
Not all media files have this restriction. Many license holders DO permit free re-distribution of their ( copyrighted ) files.
You are just spreading the same set of lies the industries push to confuse people. Perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not. Only you can answer that question.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Me thinks it's time for that bastard of a state we call California to firewall itself off from the rest of us. If not them then maybe we should do it for them.
"But he has made no secret of his opposition to the online sharing of copyrighted material. Last week he signed an executive order prohibiting state employees from using software designed for file sharing."
so no ftp/http/telnet/VPN/VNC/copy...going to play hell on having a state website
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
SB 1506
While this bill is mad and deserves serious criticism, read it before debating it. A lot of the concerns voiced about this piece of legislation are nullified by the bill's actual stipulations. By the same token, if Schwarzenegger passed this thing without further revision, then it's actually even more restrictive in some ways than the articles indicate. Unfortuantely, the press releases just aren't detailed enough; and, personally, I don't know where to find more substantive information.
age
Media File Transfers Require Email addresses? I'm sure they want valid addresses aswell. Could this be the lock lawyers want on holding p2p creators liable for software with no method of collecting, storing, and validating addresses associated with transfers? Could this even be done on a decentralized system? Who would keep the email and file transfer info?
1. Force P2P Email validation
2. Sue/Elliminate Decentralized P2P Services
3. Easily Observe Centralized Services, Sue Abusers
4. Profit
5th amendment issues apply here. There's already law on the books that state you don't have to disclose information if the disclosing of that information would incriminate you. As such, if the disclosing of an email address provides information that would incriminate you (should you be doing something criminal), you can't be punished for not providing it.
I think it's a trick to make it easier for the **AA to, for example, subpoena ISPs for people's real names and addresses. Any California lawyers here know if this legislation will indeed make bringing cases for copyright infrigement easier for the **AA?
IANAL.
Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
There are exceptions....
This bill would provide that these provisions would not apply to a
person who electronically disseminates a commercial recording to his
or her immediate family or within his or her personal network, as
defined, to a situation in which the copyright owner has explicitly
given permission for or licensed the recording or audiovisual work to
be freely disseminated, electronically disseminated, or disseminated
by means of a cable television service.
What if my e-mail address itself is copyrighted ???
So is Bit Torrent completely illegal now?
excerpt....
Maybe it will make them feel like they got something accomplished and they won't try as hard to buy a law that has a truly chilling effect. Wishful thinking, I know.
Actually, I think the purpose in having this law is more subtle than you may realize. This is directly aimed at networks that are DESIGNED to permit anonymous, non-traceable filesharing, which is the next coming thing.
Bad laws are bad laws, because of their potential consequences, and because we don't need them cluttering up our already vast legal codes
Does the law make it illegal to distribute GPLed packages containing media files from servers in CA? After all, it's a restriction on redistribution, sort of...
I'm sure they're going to bother tracking you down to fine you for not posting your email. It would be just as easy for them to track you down and fine you for sharing the files in the first place.
If they have caught you sharing copyrighted materials, they don't need your email address to track you down - they already found you. So the only way they can enforce this law is after they have caught you by some means other than tracking down your email address. This is like "possession" laws. The prosecutor will charge you with this new crime only in conjunction with other charges. In other words, this lets the prosecutor pile up more and more charges against you, in the hope that if the jury kicks out the main charges, at least they can stick you with this one.
This is just how possession charges are used. The prosecutor might charge a defendant with murder, drug trafficking,conspiracy (there's another "crime" like this one) and possession, hoping that if the jury acquits on the murder and trafficking charges, they can still send you to jail for possession or conspiracy.
It's totally bogus for discouraging piracy.
Edith Keeler Must Die
I'm going to make a bill outlawing dumbasses that introduce dumbassed bills.
Yeah, thats right, no email address here AND I am sharing a song.
Using klank3 encoding here is a pirated copy of a randomly selected Britney Spears song:
.
The encoding is ingenious actually. I simply remove all the crap from the final stream, and use an ASCII code 46 sentinel for the end of the stream. My encoding scheme is one of the few methods that actually improves the sound quality.
Star power is hiding a bunch of dirty laundry. He let Enron off the hook, after that his job was done and everything else was cake.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I recently participated in a beta test of some of your email-tracking software. I forwarded it to ten of my friends, as requested, but have not as of yet received a check for the compensation that was promised for my participation. Is there something else I need to do to claim the money?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
Hmmm. I'd say laws should: a) be enforced (otherwise there's no point in creating them), b) therefore be enforceable, and c) not conflict with more fundamental laws.
My guess is a law like the above a) won't be enforced, b) won't be enforceable if tried, and c) might conflict with fundamental privacy legislation.
That makes it a lousy law, and thus for purely technical reasons alone, shouldn't be in the books in the first place.
Isn't this like requiring people to report illegal drug income on their taxes?
Because nobody ever specifically banned it?
Actually it was probably because of people like this that have a fetish for banging cadavers.
... but doesn't this bill mean that it is completely legal to use a single copy of, for example, Microsoft Windows on every PC within a single household?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I can not believe someone, especially in California, didn't point out to the Governator just how FUCKIN stupid this law really is!
canadians_can_share@iam.ca!
What if someone shares a file outside of California, or even the US. Are they going to be subject to extradition if the file is available to someone within California?
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
However, it also says that you are *NOT* obligated to provide these details if you either owned the material you are sharing or otherwise have permission from the coypright holder to be distributing the content.
But if you don't have permission from the copyright holder to distribute the content, then distribution is copyright violation anyways. So this bill is basically saying "If you're going to break the law, you have to tell us who you are and where you live so that we can find you". This is about the stupidest thing I think I may have ever seen.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Here is a proxy chaining p2p that uses ID hashes instead of IP to transfer data it also has point to point and end to end encryption .IPs are used for bootstaping from IRC and seting strategic routing points on the network .So they will have to make a law that first bans you from even being on a p2p network and also a law that bans you from proxying data so it would mean they would have to ban every ISP also under those type of laws.
So put this in your Pipe and smoke it
Govorner Arnie
Ants P2P Features
* Open Source Java implementation (GNU-GPL license).
* Multiple sources download.
* Torrent download from partial files.
* Automatic resume and sources research over the net.
* Search by hash, string and structured query.
* Embedded support for etherogeneus data types (not only arrays of bytes...).
* Completely Object-Oriented routing protocol.
* Point to Point secured comunication: DH(512)-AES(128)
* EndPoint to EndPoint secured comunication: DH(512)-AES(128)
* Automatic serverless peer dicovery procedure.
* IRC based peer discovery system.
* IRC embeded chat system.
* Full text search of indexed documents (pdf, html, txt, doc etc) -> QUERY REFERENCE.
* Distributed/Decentralized Search engine
* HTTP tunneling.
And I'm a dumb ass... That should read:
And if you read the end, the law in question explicilty cannot bar prosecution under other laws.
It's already illegal to distribute copyrighted media without permission from the copyright owners. People won't violate one law yet be sure to comply to the law that helps them get caught.
So now, if I want to distribute media which I own the copyright to or have explicit permission to redistribute, I must also give out an email address?
So. If I disable filesharing and only download files, then I suppose I am not required to give out my email address since I'm only downloading and not sharing. Right?
No comment
For god's sake, did he read the link? IT DOESNT BAN GAME SALES. RTFA! Hell, I read the original friggin law... the least the poster could do was read his own article.
Oh, even if they could identify who posted a file, they can't remove it anyway.
"Aiding the industry that helped him gain worldwide fame, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation Tuesday aimed at discouraging online piracy by requiring anyone disseminating movies or music on the Internet to disclose their e-mail address.' Also he signed a bill to limit the sale of video games."
...Not that it has accurate registration information, let alone the fact that I signed up and access it through an anonymous proxy server. OR the fact that I'm in Utah distributing movies. I mean, how weak is that?
Sooooo... Let me get this strait: He's passing a law requiring people already engaged in a quasi-illegle activity to display an e-mail address? Who's fertile mind did this spring from!? Really now, I know bogus email addresses are a bit hard to come by these days, but... No, the submitter of this story has it all wrong. Arnold isn't aiding ANYBODY with this legistlation, let alone the music industry, because anybody with an OUNCE of common sense is going to realize it will be as effective as the proverbial submarine with a screen door. I mean, technically the email address is mine
About as weak as limiting the sale of videogames. Now WTF is THAT all about? At least he managed to strike down a motion that would ban the word "Redskins" from school sports teams and such. It's the small victories, y'know?
You need a FREE iPod Nano
When the reach of law becomes so broad that society contains more criminals than upstanding citizens, the very legitimacy of government should be questioned.
The purpose of this law is to make it possible to identify copyright violators, thus exposing them to criminal sanction. Since posting one's real email address is something which must be "done" (your email address doesn't just pop up when you use a computer, like say, your face does when you walk down the street) this law violates the constutional protection against self-incrimination. And I"M THE FIRST ONE TO POST IT HERE! my bill is in the mail.
it doesn't say "true name and address" in a form accessible to other people. So therefore you can encrypt your name and address :)
Suppose IllegalFile.avi is split into 1000 splitfile pieces. By requesting the header, I can determine the CHK keys of those pieces. Now, I request all 1000 keys from your node at HTL 0. Taking into account the fact that there's a low probability that the HTL will be "perturbed" - that is, my HTL 0 requests actually get forwarded on to another node once in awhile - I can deduce that if your node says DataFound to more than N% of the 1000 queries, the file is likely stored on your node. (I don't know the value for N, but if I were to look at the Freenet source, I could figure it out soon enough.)
Freenet's sole potential defense is plausible deniability but I'm not confident that would ever stand up in court. The fact is that if your node's datastore contains known illegal content, it can be proven well enough to get a search warrant, take a look at the HD, and see whether or not the content is there.
but what about the legality of identifying someone using an email address? A signature is a legally accepted way of stating acceptance of exchange of something (such as contracts). So how can a law demand you provide your name and email be upheld unless the email is considered an appropriate form of digital signature. So I spoof my IP address, use someone elses name and email and then what? My email address is NOT a valid identification of myself in ANY internet transaction. It only identifies someone who has access to an email account of some sort. I agree, this may be some sort of salami tactic for getting in a law for later ammendment, but the mistake was using bad meat the salami in the first place.
Nothing in there says that you can't use programs that anonymously share files, so long as you're not sharing files.
If the programs are truly anonymous, then how are they going to catch you anyways?
Continuing to beat the horse to death since 1984.
So, are they going to try to enforce this outside of California borders?
The RIAA knows that P2P users can be identified by their IP addresses. But it's difficult to explain to the public that they have no anonymity when using P2P software without also revealing that they have no anonymity when browsing for porn, which would upset a lot of people and make the government look like Big Brother. Much better to leave people's beliefs unchanged and instead pass a law that makes most existing P2P software illegal, splits the P2P development community into "collaborators" and "illegals", and paves the way for legislation requiring email addresses to be traceable.
Not sure about the fifth ammendment ramifications. It seems that the counter argument is that this is simply requiring people who presumably have permission to identify themselves so that they can better go after those who do not have permission.
:-)
:-)
Now, the first ammendment aspect may be more interesting. I propose that we all create political speaches as media files and in them explicitly state that we only give permission for them to be distributed, publically exhibited, etc. anonymously, and that no one is allowed to *both* distribute the content and comply with this law. Then we should send them around P2P networks with catchy titles like "California Dreaming--- RIAA Dream On" etc. Note only the copyright holder would have permission to email them to political figures, or we could make an exception for that in the license
Such speech would have clear political value and would not contain the unprotected practical elements which cause problems for DeCSS cases. In the end one might have a case regarding whether one can legally curtail political discourse using such laws. Also if such laws cannot curtail political discourse, then they might not be able to curtail other things as well.
As an aside, we could also set the text ofthe law to music and then forbid anyone to distribute it in such a way that complies with the law
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
First they elect Reagan, and now Arnold.
Frankly, I hope the whole damned state drops into the
Pacific soon. It's what they deserve.
Outfoxed
l le ction=election_2004&collectionid=outfoxed_intervie ws
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?co
How long till apathy kills your choice?
It's all ready killed common sense.
VOTE
~hylas
it is all Arnolds fault...not the legislators not the lack of coverage here or elsewhere to counter it yup its all the governers fault becouse it is in the best intrest of a relatively new governer to veto any legislation that slashdoters disagree with despite any loss of political colateral such a move would cause......
but hey i got something you might want to know...the good old democraticly dominated california legislator wrote the damn thing and voted it into law but yeah it is all Arnolds fault.
to bad california didn't still have Democrat Grey Davis OH wait...i guess not, he would have signed it also AND california would still be in budget dire strates.
stendec@gmail.com
piracy@microsoft.com; it'd take years before they figured out the boilerplate about what was going on.
.. and so on and so forth.
Hollywood: "You've pirated a movie."
Microsoft: "Thank you for reporting this piracy. We will prosecute violators to the full extent of the law."
"And whats especially disturbing are the heavy ties with the entertainment industy that Mr. Schwartznegger has, it's pretty obvious who he's looking out for."
You idiot it is not all on Schwartznegger's head....read between the lines...the article is obviously trying to skew the blame for this piece of shit law....check at the very bottem (not a coincidence that it as the end) and you will find out the bill was written by Sen. John Vasconcellos, D-Santa Clara....thats right a DEMOCRAT and let us see oh yeah the who has the mojority in california's two legislative branches...you guessed it the DEMOCRATS.
It is funny that people think this party is about free speach....free speach so long as hollywood can make money and you don't disagree with the good old democrats...hell look what they are doing to Nader by sueing him out of the election
stendec@gmail.com
Freenet inserts splitfiles with 50% redundant error-correcting (FEC) data. So if IllegalFile.avi is split into 1000 data blocks then an additional 500 "check blocks" will be inserted as well. All 1500 blocks have CHK keys listed in the splitfile. So to "prove" that someone probably downloaded a file, you just need to find 1000 of those 1500 blocks in the users' datastore.
Complicating the legal question is that recent Freenet builds (in the last month or two) now effectively make all nodes non-transient. Connections between nodes are now also "bi-directional". So whereas before your transient node only stored content you downloaded, it is now being sent content (and requests for content) from the non-transient nodes that it connects to. The only difference from a permanent node is that they don't announce themselves. I think the idea is to offload some of the storage from the non-transient nodes as well as distribute the data more. I've often found when I leave my node on for several days that a splifile will start downloading and a few (or a lot!) of the blocks are already in my datastore.
In the end I think it depends on the laws in your part of the world. Even if the authorites can find all/most of a file (warez/movie/music/CP/etc) in your freenet datastore, is that enough to convict? i.e does that qualify as "posession"? Or do they have to show (within reasonable doubt) that you purposefully requested that content? Has the EFF or someone compiled information about this sort of thing?
But I must say. . , that website link on your post, (Democrats for Bush) was pretty astonishing!
Anybody who doesn't recognize that Bush is a psychopath is either stupid, or is deliberately avoiding reading anything outside the prescribed jingoistic dogma. (Which is also pretty stupid.) Or, of course, such a person could also be evil, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
You might also be joking, but I've run into enough people who have bought the line to know that this is unlikely. What a world, eh!
I could provide you with a lot very illuminating material if I thought you wanted to be illuminated, but I don't get that impression.
It seems likely at this point that those who are still living with blinders on are doing so deliberately. Reality is a much more complicated and depressing place than the fiction, after all. (Or so some find; for me the whole show is entirely fascinating to watch unfold. --Though, I do recognize that my attitude is an unusual one. Global destruction and mass-misery can be very upsetting, and I do sympathize with those who are horrified by the prospect of the ends of their various worlds.) Regardless though, studied ignorance despite the calming effect, has ZERO use in the long run. Protection only comes from knowledge.
-FL
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nobody really gives a rat's ass if you screw a corpse,
It depends whose corpse it is. Of course, how you legally get your hands on the corpse in the first place is another question. And if you can manage that, yeah, I doubt anyone would care.
That is all.
What this bill does is effectively adding one year of jail time. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it pointless? No.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
What about does downloading from iTunes. I thought I can freely distribute a song I bought from iTunes.
County Jail? Room and board + three square meals a day AND I don't have to work for a year? Throw the book at me baby! Meetcha at the public library Andy Taylor!
The only way a hotmail account is "anonymous" is if you always use a HTTP proxy which does not log anything, and go through that. Except of course that most probably when it hits SSL during login your browser won't go through any proxies (unless configured), at which time they have your IP address. And of course the proxy can be compromised.
Anyway, rule of thumb. Hotmail knows who you are and will gladly share all information when asked to.
And this applies to million other places too.
If I use a SOCKS or HTTP proxy in another state/country, would this bill still be a hiderance?
So other than providing another way for spammers to harvest email addresses, what exactly does this law do?
Oh wait, it keeps campaign contributors happy. I get it now.
fucking stupid arnoldc /a/2004/ 09/22/BAGQO8SOCF1.DTL /California file sharers who trade songs or films without
/But he has made no secret of his opposition to the online sharing of
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/
providing an e-mail address will be guilty of a misdemeanor, under the
first-in-the-nation measure that could make it easier for law enforcement to
a track down people who illegally download copyrighted material./
well on the way to making the hunting jukebox a felony
i cant believe he sold his ass out to the RIAA *ALREADY*!!!!!
total recall that muthafucka
ya'll haven't seen me in awhile, but this voice gotta be heard, dont put
the cat back in the bag, please, dont keep the people from these pieces of
knowledge, the whole landscape is on the verge of changing with things
such as these.. you cant do this! see the proof
http://dreamscape.org/code/autodonkey (mlnet/edonkey2000 automation)
http://dreamscape.org/code/autonuts-mutella (mutella automation)
-the former only napster sysadmin, ya'll might remember me
first they take away the reasonable expiry of terms
and now they criminalize the transmission of non-identifyable packets on *stereotypical generalization*
that the majority of the traffic is illegitimate?
Shal *all* packets be incremented 100 bytes to accomidate this law?
It is so fucking assinine that it doesnt stand up on its own two feet.
This is betrayal of the public domain!
i cant let them criminalize that algorithm
if he's so retarted technology wise that he has to use legislation to do
it and if he cant just tap the whole damn state then he can go to hell
if he doesnt have the technology or access to it then he doesnt deserve it
keep your laws off my packets! hehe
that law is like the english-will-now-be-spoken-as-IRC-chat-reads law
ARNOLD hello!
ARNOLD how are you today!
its like a infringement on my first amendment right to speak how I want to
speak.
hes a sellout fuck
aint even in office a couple months and done already fucked it up, chosen
the entertainment industry over all of the other industries. He took
something, and he gave something back. Something that wasn't his to give!
this paves the way for much greater evils
anonymity is not a crime
legitimate use is there, there is nearly 4x-8x the floor real estate for
electronic music than there is for mainstream bullshit
he is completely incompetent when it comes to an understanding of modern
science and technology
also from the same article:
copyrighted material. Last week he signed an executive order prohibiting
state employees from using software designed for file sharing./
goodbye NFS, goodbye Samba, goodbye Http
HAHA
goodbye SMTP
-slf ATTTA DREeeeeeaaAAaaMmmmMsCccAPppEE AH DoTTA oRGGGGGGAH
i voted for arnold. NEVER AGAIN!
You use a lot of words. I like that.
I frequently misspell "speech" as "speach", because I'm thinking "speak", "speaker", etc.
/.
It always helps to watch someone get publically ridiculed though. Next time I want to use the word "speech", I know I'll spell it correctly because of the wonderful little pedants at
...that California is just one of fifty states, and that I don't live there. It was crazy enough when Arnie got elected governor (I was rooting for the porn star, but alas - I didn't get to vote), but you nutbags pass idiotic laws like they were going out of style.
I think I'm going to try to get the Oregon-California Border Fortification and Immigration Denial bill presented to my state legislature again....
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
Mailinator vs. Governator
they work him by remote control from an orbiting disney spacestation, do you know NOTHING?
it also give the state more powers. get busted for anything involving a computer? mail people who are on a state watch-list? when you get busted they'll check out your online activity and discover you once downloaded a film illegally and can you for that, as well. it's part of a creeping movement towards potentially criminalising everyone. you're not going to arrest everyone but you could arrest anyone.
Florida as legal .50cal firearms and spammers? What a happy coincidence!
The USA also has the largest absolute number of prisoners (~2 million) in the world, compared to Chinas ~1.5m or so. Well it helps to keep the unemployment figures down I guess.
One obvious implication is that the government gets to sue and trial you, as opposed to the copyright holders. And, more importantly for the RIAA, the goverment gets to pay for the trials as well.
Please excuse any incorrect terms in this post - my knowledge to the US legal system is limited, being from Denmark. But I do read groklaw
I'm glad the poster is objective, otherwise we might get hit by bias reporting.. oh wait.. we did.
The video game 'limit' is aimed at keeping kids from buying games rated MA-17. If you have a problem with that perhaps you would suggest that children be admitted to NC-17 rated movies as well?
It should be illegal for the MPAA/RIAA to release a movie or an album without disclosing that it sucks. (Applies to 99% of them, just like this email law.)
But this is a moot point anyway. If the RIAA gets to take your hard disk and dissect it, then it is much more likely that they will find the file you downloaded, they don't even have to look at whats in your datastore. In other words, by the time you have got to this stage, you are already screwed (unless you are smart enough to use an encrypted partition).
What matters is what the RIAA can tell about your activities remotely, and the answer to that, in Freenet's case, is "nothing useful".
As usual it seems that most of you haven't even RTFA!
A number of points :
So, in summary, this only applies if you are swapping known commerical material without the permission of the copyright holder.
Which is fucking stupid because i'd already be commiting a FELONY anyway, so what is an extra $2500 on top of that anyway?
Interesting listening to everyone rant and rave anyway.
All the 5th amendment says about self-incrimination is: "... nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself..."
In other words, it's very specifically talking about what can be required of you in court. The founders knew that no-one could control what goes on in secret interrogation chambers (*cough* Guantanamo), which is why they tried so hard to stipulate that punishment could only be meted out through the court process; then, quite rightly, they focused on specifying that process.
As for the 1st amendment point, does this sound familiar: "I'm George W Bush and I approved this message."
How's that for an email address?
--- Generation X: The first generation to have SIG lines inferior to their parents... ---
So,
.....
It WAS illegal to fileshare copyrighted content without consent
Now it is illegal to fileshare copyrighted content without consent if you don't include your email...
I do not understand, is it NOW LEGAL to fileshare copyrighted content without consent if you DO include your email address?
Exactly how has this
ahhh, the light dawneth... previously, filesharing copyrighted material without consent was a civil matter, not it is a legal/criminal matter...
So, the content owners have managed to foist the cost of enforcement off onto the go-varmint.
Your tax dollars at work! (not mine, I don't live in the good old US of A)
I cant answer for Calif, ( the way the story read it implied they were not ) but they arent restricted in my area.... ( midwest )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If your breaking the law by sharing pirate files why would you care your breaking the law by not disclosing your email?
And if you don't adhere to the law by providing contact information, they'll email you.... um... arrest you when you finally tell them who you are.
do not read this line twice.
IANALBIRG - I Am Not A Lawyer But I Read Groklaw
A Nony Mouse
Evil bit idea:
l
The measures include an "evil bit" that can be set an unset according to wether the packet is evil or not."
Arnold's bill:
The measures include your "email address" according to wether the file being shared is evil or not." http://slashdot.org/articles/03/04/01/133217.shtm
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
A good analogy! Except... driving is NOT a right; it is a privilege. Use of a car (as opposed to passage on foot, or being driven by a licensed individual) is not considered a right. Free speech is a right. And, "Cutting through the acronyms and argot that littered the hearing testimony, the Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation. The Government may not, through the CDA, interrupt that conversation. As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the Internet deserves the highest protection from governmental intrusion. " (Judge Dalzell in ACLU v Reno, 1996; upheld before the Supreme Court on appeal in Reno v ACLU, 96-511.)
We have an explicitly assured right to freedom of speech by the first amendment. ("If you can keep it" --Ben Franklin. Shut up, Ben....) Slightly different.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
"Justice Stevens said "quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent.""
Funny. That doesn't work for Slashdot. Why should it work elsewere?
If I want to rob a store, I have to leave a note on the desk with my name and phone number? *insert rolling eyes here*
Obviously, I didn't read the article start to finish, however, the wording appears to be a little dumb.
For that matter, is a song always considered a file? If so, is the radio considered a file transfer device? What about the new satellite radio style devices which probably do transfer the data in a compressed form?
I'm going to throw a quote here, because I think I see the big problem with this bill:
> California file sharers who trade songs or films
> without providing an e- mail address will be
> guilty of a misdemeanor, under the
> first-in-the-nation measure that could make it
> easier for law enforcement to track down people
> who illegally download copyrighted material.
This means that it would become the government's problem to track down file sharers rather than a private problem. This means that anyone living in California (and probably any other state they buy) will be paying the government to allocate resources to finding and stopping these hooligans who share media without providing an email address. This could be a very bad bill.
The MPAA/RIAA could find offending IPs and forward those along to the authorities. They were never interested in the money they could get from lawsuits--they just want to be the only way to get media, so they can keep the prices too high. A misdermeanor is, according to wikipedia.org, a low crime comparable to petty theft. They don't want to sue kids, they want them to stop sharing files. Send the police to their house and tell their parents--soon they will be grounded if they share music.
I see this as a victory for fair use. I think that sharing music with friends has established precedence for fair use. I think anonymous sharing realy does struggle to stay within the bounds of fair use. I see this as the thin wedge that may yet separate the RIAA from their pay per play model and acknowledgement of far use rights.
I want to see artists get their royalties, something the RIAA does a better job of stealing from the artists than internet downloading.
that this is a California law and most of the P2P programs are developed by persons who don't reside in California so then not subject to California's laws and regs?
How can California force a german company to comply in regards to a freeware program distributed on the internet? How can california enforce that when i download this program (I live in CA)and install it I just don't choose to give an email?
(unless you are smart enough to use an encrypted partition).
Only in the UK, refusing to hand over the decrpytion key is a serious offence, and "oops I forgot it" is not a valid excuse - not so handy if PC Plod wants to read that email you sent 5 years ago with a short lived key you've long lost.
I wonder if you could show that your system generated a new secret key every week, and threw away a key when it got to 2 weeks old, you could still be expected to decrypt old email. If anyone fancies keeping their email secret - keep changing those secret keys.
Then again, didn't France ban encryption outright for a while?
"Plain text works are not included. "
.mp3 to .txt and then share it.. will this be enforcable under the law since by defenition i am sharing a text file?
so if I rename my
I could provide my gmail and password and then anything that's mailed to it will be availble. p2pmail.
Hi All,
5 0/sb_1506_bill_20040921_chaptered.html
Just FYI, there are many links above to the "introduced" version of the bill from February, but it changed a lot before it was "chaptered" September 21st.
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-15
It no longer mentions physical addresses or phone numbers. It doesn't apply to sharing within your "immediate family" or "immediate household." And it is VERY clear on exceptions, like when you own the copyright, or when you have permission to share.
Not that I like this bill, and not that it really holds any water at all... It's definitely abuse.