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."

Comments

Re:What's with these laws?

[whoever57]

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?

According to my understanding, even if you have permission to share the file, you still have to provide an address.

Text of the bill

[the_demiurge]

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

Slashdot blows things out of proportion again.

[Anonymous Coward]

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."

Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

the Motion Picture Association of America, which says it loses $3.5 billion annually to piracy

Hollywood accounting, ya gotta love it, babe.


Yeh, my favorite was that Forest Gump made no profit whatsoever. At least for the purposes of royalties to the original author. Haha.

Wonder what this means for my own anonymous network... we're finally starting to see some geometric growth. Figures, eh?

Actually, try to read the LAW and not the blurb

[Anonymous Coward]

To quote:

• Any person, except a minor, who is located in
  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

Questions.

[YouHaveSnail]

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.

Text of SB1506

[Anonymous Coward]

History:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_n umber=sb_1506&sess=CUR&house=S

Senate analysis:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-155 0/sb_1506_cfa_20040820_131207_sen_floor.html

Text of bill (HTML):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-155 0/sb_1506_bill_20040823_enrolled.html

Re:that

[whoever57]

Maybe it is not constitutional, but check out the actual text for yourself. It looks pretty clear to me that there is no exception for files that you have permission to trade.

Video Games

[adamjone]

Also he signed a bill to limit the sale of video games.

Ummm... no, that's not at all what he did. Talk about blowing things out of proportion. Directly from the 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.

The bill only requires that video game retailers provide information on the rating system. It in no way inhibits the sale of any game to anyone. In fact, he indicated that he would strike down any bill that included any such ban.

Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[pizzaman100]

He was in a number of pinball games, and we know how violent those are. ;)

TERMINATOR 2

TERMINATOR 3

Last Action Hero

Re:Violation of rights?

[Anonymous Coward]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

I guess you didn't pay attention in Government class. The people still GRANT the rights to their State governments, as well. "We the people" give them the rights. Neither the State nor the Federal goverments grant us ANYTHING... we grant them everything they have.

Re:It will never survive.

[EzInKy]

There's no right to anonymous free speech -- one of the important issues regarding free speech is the responsibility for what you say.

According to the Supreme Court there is.

If you can find a law that protects your anonymity as a right, you're really on to something.

Here is Justice Steven's opinion:

"Justice Steven's opinion for the Court note that arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. 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." Stevens concluded "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

My Email Address

[GAMMAH_DJ]

root@127.0.0.1

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[Alsee]

Actually the law is far worse than that. It does not seem like anyone has yet posted the fact that the actual text of the law requires not only an e-mail address, but requires you to include your TRUE NAME AND ADDRESS. Sigh. Fucking stupid law, pardon the french.

-

Nothing is Anonymous

[nurb432]

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..

Here's the Definition of "Valid E-mail address"

[wernst]

From the Text of the law:

" (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

Obsolete Law

[WiseWeasel]

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).

Re:Lots of questions, Some Answers

[duce gezr]

After reading the article, head over to http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-1550/s b_1506_bill_20040823_enrolled.html

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...

Stupid /.er

[geekoid]

It applies to commercial distribution, not copyright as a whole.

You guys are missing the point

[SeattleGameboy]

The bill is not just to further punish currently outlawed activity, it is to criminalize what is a civil offense.

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...

Re:Apple?

[rabbar]

Apple is exempted under this exclusion: "To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a commercial audiovisual work or recording."

Ummm..you are spreading false info

[nurb432]

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.

Link to Senate Bill 1506

[base_chakra]

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.

Re:What about my own music or video?

[rabbar]

Did you read the law that was signed into law before posting? Of course not, in fine Slashdot tradition. No need to supply your email address if you own the copyright or have the permission of the copyright holder. " (c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply: (1) To a person who electronically disseminates a commercial recording or audiovisual work to his or her immediate family, or within his or her personal network, defined as a restricted access network controlled by and accessible to only that person or people in his or her immediate household. (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. (3) To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a commercial audiovisual work or recording. (4) To the licensed electronic dissemination of a commercial audiovisual work or recording by means of a cable television service offered over a cable system or direct to home satellite service as defined in Title 47 of the United States Code. (d) Nothing in this section shall restrict the copyright owner from disseminating his or her own copyrighted material."

RTFB

[originalhack]

If you RTFB, it is clear the the work must be commercial and you must not have a license to distribute it, otherwise this does not apply.

excerpt....

SECTION 1. Section 653aa is added to the Penal Code, to read:
653aa. (a) Any person, except a minor, who is located in
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.
(b) Any minor who violates subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine
not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Any minor who
commits a third or subsequent violation of subdivision (a) is
punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000),
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or
by both that imprisonment and fine.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply:
(1) To a person who electronically disseminates a commercial
recording or audiovisual work to his or her immediate family, or
within his or her personal network, defined as a restricted access
network controlled by and accessible to only that person or people in
his or her immediate household.
(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.
(3) To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright
owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner
to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a
commercial audiovisual work or recording.

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[andrew_dupont]

Actually, the text of the bill says that one must specify either a street address or an e-mail address.

Great! Another "possession" law, selective use

[kindbud]

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.

This bill is completely illogical.

[mark-t]

It says it requires your email address and physical address and phone number if you are going to share files.

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.