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

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?

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: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..

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).

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.

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.