Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New California Law Bans Anonymous Media File Sharing

Posted by timothy on from the now-that's-helpful dept.

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."

5 of 679 comments (clear)

  1. Text of the bill by the_demiurge · · Score: 5, Informative

    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

  2. Video Games by adamjone · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.
  3. Re:It will never survive. by EzInKy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

    --
    Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
  4. Re:sure, he can have my email address by Alsee · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    -

    --
    - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
  5. RTFB by originalhack · · Score: 5, Informative
    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.