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."
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 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.
Time to sign up for an @something.ru or the like.
I'm Rick James with mod points biatch!
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!!!!
Governor and video game star Arnold Schwarzenegger
Video game star? What video game was he in besides T2: Arcade?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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
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
I don't know how better informed they could be. The rating system is prominent on the package, and easy to understand, no signs or brochures needed.
I mean, the box for GTA3 has a hooker and a pimp and other thugs on it, has a giant M for mature, under which it says "Realistic Blood and Gore" "Adult situations" and "Foul language", or something close to that.
Who looks at that and thinks "this sounds like a great present for my 4 year old nephew"?
The movie industry survived without special laws. Noone was stupid enough to think that Scarface was a good movie for little kids.
Know what it's about? Get out your tinfoil hat. The video game industry has surpassed the movie industry in sales. It's imperative that the MPAA cut it's hamstrings, or do something to slow it down. More people have played "Chronicles of Riddick" on XBox than have seen the movie.
Not that I'm suggesting that Arnold Shwarzenegger has any ties to the movie industry, or anything like that.
Try to make it more of a pain in the ass to buy video games, just maybe people will spend their entertainment bucks on DVDs instead.
Just a thought.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
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!
Hollywood accounting, ya gotta love it, babe.
Ummmm... the folks in Hollywood have not been getting much of my money recently, but it's not because of piracy. It's because they have produced next to nothing that I want to see or hear, regardless of how much I would have to pay for it!
If these people really want to increase their income, they should stop puttering around with piracy issues; that's pocket change in comparison with actually producing movies and music worth buying.
Actually, for the last several decades the right to anonymous free speech has been acknowledged as a constitutional right. Unfortunately, what is a right is determined by the Supreme Court, and how expensive (and dangerous) it is to get a hearing in the Supreme Court is determined by the lower court system. And the court system is so overcrowded there isn't room for all the good cases. (Even when there was, the Supreme Court would frequently refuse to hear an appeal, because they didn't want to tackle that decision at that point in time.)
Merely being right is no protection.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Does anyone read the bills they sign? I haven't seen any sign of that. They have some staffer tell them what it's about. The staffer doesn't want to read the bill either and probably just asked the people who know most about the bill: the special interests who started the whole thing.
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
Since when does freedom of speach extend to the illigal distribution of copywritten movies over the internet?
Since when does this law have ANYTHING to do with copyright infringment?
And if it did, it would be the stupidest law I've ever heard of. It would have to say you are free to share non-infringing files however you like, but if you are already commiting a FELONY sharing infringing files then we are also going to tack on a petty misdemeanor unless you post your e-mail address. I've seen some stupid laws, but that would be colossally stupid.
No, it sounds like this law is only modestly stupid and requires ANYONE who shares any music or video file to supply an e-mail address. And yes, it quite likely can get struck down on constitutional grounds as it would apply to someone distributing POLITICAL COMMENTARY music and video, such as Jib-Jab's My-Land parody. You do indeed have a highly protected right to ANONYMOUS political speech.
Just because a law is uintended to (indirectly) target copyright infringment does not give it a free pass on the First Amendment when the law infringes the right to anonymous political speech.
Jeez, we already have insane levels of criminality for copyright infringment itself (you can go to prison for 5 years for non-commercial copyright infringment/trade of a single song). What the hell is up with umpteen other laws all making PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE AND NON-INFRINGING ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTS INTO CRIMES?!?! The DMCA, the AHRA, the broadcast flag, and now this law. All of which also smack down innocent and non-infringing people.
I have a question, do you support the DMCRA and/or BALANCE act? All they do is fix the DMCA by de-criminalizing INNOCENT and NON-INFRINGING use. If you do not support the DMCRA and/or BALANCE act then I ask how you justify the DMCA stating that innocent and non-infringing people are liable to 5 or 10 years in prision?
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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).
response to numeber one:
how do you prove someone knows it commercial?
How do the powers that be know it's commercial?
It draws a line between copyright and commercial. So the MPAA can use my works that aren't commercial with no penalty. The members of the MPAA have more then once used material that wasn't theres.
Finally, I should not have to dusclose who I am.
response to two:
Putting people in Jail for possible copyright violation is really ignorant and abusive. It should remain as a civil punishment.
respose for 3:
So if it is determined I violated this law(not copyright law) they will destroy my original media. Which I paid for.
response to 4:
Thats good, but it applies only to the violation of THIS law, not to copyright infringment.
response to 6:
How can we be responsible for knowing the authors intentions?
response to 8:
If you intiate OR make available OR otherwise offer. You vilate this law.
I love that they say "Internet or other digital network" would just digital network be fine?
response to 9:
"Again if it's legit this is simply providing a point of contact so questions can be asked."
I should not have to make myself available for questioning.
I am now legally beholden to check my email regularly. Which will be fun soince I will ahve to syphon through toms of SPAM, since my email address will be easily available to anybody.
on another note, you said:
"If it's legit why would you care?"
Are you real advocating have to prove your innosence?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Actually, both groups are going after all sorts of religions. For instance, they "lobbied" (no idea what word to use here, bribed?) Sunni Islam into declaring it a sin to infringe intellectual property less than a year ago.
Personally I'd find it hilarious, if it wasn't so serious... how far can they go? 200 years after the death of the author, life in prison for breaking a directv card?
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.
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
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.
... 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'
Define commercial.
I can sell a work that is in the public domain, is it now commercial?
Um.... if it was made a separate offense if you did not immediately go to the police and provide them your name, address, and fingerprints after committing a murder, would that be constitutional too? (To anticipate one possible objection: perjury is different. You need not testify, unless granted immunity; you may take the fifth otherwise. If you do, however, you can THEN be prosecuted for lying.)
I am not a lawyer; I just drink with them. Unless you are one, I suggest that neither of us is qualified to offer an expert opinion.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
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?
it doesn't say "true name and address" in a form accessible to other people. So therefore you can encrypt your name and address :)
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.
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
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?