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."
I am willing to bet it will be struck down as inhibiting legitimate anonymous free speech.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
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
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.
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.
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.
What email address does Apple get to use? Or Real? Or Microsoft?
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?
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"?
Just like it's illegal to not report profits from illegal activities to the IRS. It gives them more ammo to use against you. If they can't prove one thing, they have something else to go after you for.
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.
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!
My sentiments exactly. This law is almost impossible to enforce. Trying to chase down people who break this law will cost the state millions. So what the point? Sounds like Arnold kowtowing to the Industry.
I didn't vote for the man, but I had to admit a while back that he was doing a decent job. Now this...
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
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
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?
* 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
Precisely. Stacking charges. This allows the prosecutor's to have 12 charges against you intsead of one. They can then plea bargain down to just one or two charges if you plead guilty. This means prosecutors get their 90%+ conviction records they want if they want to become DA or something, and a lot of innocent people go to jail because they take the plea bargain rather than go through a costly trial at the risk of even longer jail time.
live(free) || die;
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.
This is what you call feel-good legislation. It makes the RIAA/MPAA lobbying groups feel like they're getting something for their efforts. Any technical person knows the law is meaningless (how hard is it to sign up for an annonymous Hotmail account?) and that it will not affect filesharing at all. But I say let the lobbyists have their petty victory. 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.
According to my understanding, even if you have permission to share the file, you still have to provide an address.
Which is important - because everybody knows email addresses are a great authoritative identity source...
Should be about as effective as having spammers sign their email address.
"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.
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? ]=-
I mean, I really really don't it. It's already illegal share movies.
You mean if I make a movie or tape a song by myself it's illegal for me to share it?
What if the work is under a creative commons license?
Because those are two of the situations this bill will affect.
I stole this Sig
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
Yeah, like Microsoft is going to protect your anonimity when the MPAA comes knocking. Try: ipiratemusic@newmail.ru anonymimityismyfriend@satcom.ir youcantfindme@offroader.com.cn
Actually, the section that I read never even said that it had to be you own email account. Just that it had to either be a valid email account, or be your own. (And interesting formulation.)
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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!
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
This is what you call feel-good legislation. It makes the RIAA/MPAA lobbying groups feel like they're getting something for their efforts. Any technical person knows the law is meaningless (how hard is it to sign up for an annonymous Hotmail account?) and that it will not affect filesharing at all. But I say let the lobbyists have their petty victory. 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.
I'd have more confidence in the intelligence of the RIAA/MPAA than the intelligence of the government. This isnt a feel good situation for the entertainment industry that we should just blow off as irrelevant just because it looks meaningless on the surface.
This in fact has a lot of meaning, it means the industry has yet another foot hold in our legal system. Once a law has made it into the system, it's damn hard to get it out. You watch, in a year, they'll be lobbying that it's not effective enough, and it will be even easier to add new rules to whats already there second time around.
This is a common strategy, you see it all over the place. Take away a little freedom, get people used to it, then take a little more.
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.
Wouldn't this law apply to all users who use Windows or anything with open shares as well, considering that is "file sharing"?
thats because it was legal in 1937.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Fine, then everyone can use disposable e-mail addresses.
---
"I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
He might want to consider a ban on showing caskets of returning service personnel from Iraq, as that could upset impressionable television viewers.
He might want to consier worrying about illegal immigrants crossing his states borders. All of this worry about filesharing or if a child is playing a violent video game while 600,000 illegal immigrants come into the US a year, mostly into California. How hard is it for 10 to 20 terrorists to get in with that group of 600,000?
California and our government needs to get their priorities straight. Don't worry about what Video games kids are playing, that is a parents job. Instead, worry about securing the border, getting citizenship for the hard working Mexicans that want to come here to live the American dream and Kick out the Criminals, Terrorists, and other assorted thugs.
It's something else to add to the list of charges if you're caught. Even if the copyright holder isn't interested in pursuing a criminal prosecution, a bought and paid-for district attorney can use this statute against you and the label/studio endures no bad publicity (a la Adobe).
CEE5210S The signal SIGHUP was received.
When the reach of law becomes so broad that society contains more criminals than upstanding citizens, the very legitimacy of government should be questioned.
Catching dirt-poor people trying to sneak over the border is one thing. Trying to catch well funded people is another. You're not going to see terrorists trying to sneak in from Mexico, as they're more likely to drive across the border from Canada or sail into a harbor in Florida. The hardest part of catching bad men is when they haven't done anything already to be identified for.
That said, do you enjoy inexpensive lettuce, strawberries, kiwi fruit, cabbage, brussels sprouts, artichokes, melons, garlic, etc.? Someone's got to pick them and I don't see any white-european faces out there in those fields.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
I'd think giving them a feeling of accomplishment would only encourage them. "Hey, wow! You *can* buy a law!"
"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson
Computers may as well be flat out banned then. Any operating system that allows saving of files is "file sharing software". A user could save to a device, and then connect the device to another computer. OMG, filesharing!!!
My patience is infinite, my time is not.
If you don't believe me, a recent study showed that Walmart *COSTS* the state of california 80 million a year in services consumed by walmart employees (welfare, medical care for uninsured, etc). And walmart pays a HELL of a lot better then picking fruit or day labor.
So basically, tax payers are subsidizing the cost of labor for companies which employ illegal aliens...
And the crux of the situation is it sucks all around. The aliens are trying to escape a horrible situation in mexico, but they're making a horrible situation here. Most Californians feel at this point that we've already been *WAY* too generous and its time to look out for ourselves.
Religion is a gateway psychosis. -- Dave Foley