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."
Well, if they sponsor it, it's gotta be good for the Governator and what's good for him is good for California. You got something to say about that, Girly-man?
the Motion Picture Association of America, which says it loses $3.5 billion annually to piracy
Hollywood accounting, ya gotta love it, babe.
Governor and video game star Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a measure aimed at curbing sales of violent video games to children. ..
Some of Schwarzenegger's movies were spun off into video games that bear the governor's likeness - although they are not among the most violent under the industry's ratings system.
Sure is helpful to have connections to those who determine what violent is. He might want to consider a ban on showing caskets of returning service personnel from Iraq, as that could upset impressionable television viewers.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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 don't get it? Either he doesn't get it either or he wasn't paying attention while he was signing these bills. ...Anyone think he was busy pumping?
UID 1000000 is just around the corner.
its either billg@microsoft.com
.com ?:) )
or
president@whitehouse.gov (or was it
Lawyers, MBA's, RIAA? A jedi fears not these things!
ipiratemusic@hotmail.com
anonymimityismyfriend@hotmail.com
youcantfindme@hotmail.com
Need I continue?
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
I am willing to bet it will be struck down as inhibiting legitimate anonymous free speech.
My other computer is a Jacquard loom.
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!
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.
I've seen a lot more files from this user: illbeback@mailinator.com
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.
So you have to provide an email address if you're "disseminating" movies/music/etc. What purpose does that serve other than to direct the MPAA straight to your door?
"I make people like me... WITH VIOLENCE!" - ATHF
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.
if i caatch you shaaareing fiiles, i will torminate you! raaagaaa!!! raaaaah!
What email address does Apple get to use? Or Real? Or Microsoft?
he signed a law that finally made necrophilia a crime in California. Who cares about file sharing...
When the casket is a 'rockin
Don't come a 'knockin
Monstar L
Right, *no* one will be able to distribute *anything* anonymously if they have to provide an EMAIL address...
After all, an EMAIL address is as solid an ID as a fingerprint!
Signed, arnoldschwarzeneggar245573@hotmail.com
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?
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
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.
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."
My email address? A real one, even? No problem! Get'cher red hot MP3s from your friendly local root@localhost! I might even reply to emails sent to that address, for a particularly appropriately-scoped definition of "localhost".
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
"i'll be back"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
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!
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?
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
* 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
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.
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
History:n umber=sb_1506&sess=CUR&house=S
5 0/sb_1506_cfa_20040820_131207_sen_floor.html
5 0/sb_1506_bill_20040823_enrolled.html
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_
Senate analysis:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-15
Text of bill (HTML):
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-15
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.
Email address used for file sharing?
* asdf@asdf.com
* schwartzenegger@california.gov
* sit@home.org
* eat@joes.com
* cowboyneal@slashdot.org
batshit crazy freaks
.50 cal ammo, which was also rejected on multiple occasions, until some nameless legislators decided to "ghost vote" (ie, vote somebody else's button in addition to their own).
You have NO idea. I walked into the local Fry's the other day, and found that pretty much everything in the store had a tag reading "Warning: Handling this product will expose you to lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, [etc]"
Holy crap! Was this Fry's once a firing range, and now contaminated with lead? Was everything they were selling made in some south-of-the-border factory that had a lead smelter under the roof? Were these items Chinese, and painted in lead-based paints?
Actually, it was none of the above. The notices were required because of lead content in the solder used in the cabling.
The legislators here have WAY too much time on their hands. Most of them are career politicians or career wannabees, and want to build up a "track record" of high-profile legislation (ie, crap that does nobody any good if you thought about it, but makes for a great photo op.) For example, this Yee fellow from San Francisco was slapped down multiple times - by his fellow legislators, and kept coming back by hollowing out other people's bills in order to put in his own ridiculous provisions. Then of course, there was the bill that banned
Fraud in an election would get both parties screaming about how people's rights were violated, but evidently it's ok if it's done on a regular basis by elected officials. Crazy doesn't even begin to describe the situation here...
if they can prove you did it, then it wasn't anonymous. If they can't, then you can't be found guilty. Who the hell thought up this law?
"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.
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!
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? ]=-
How come necrophilia was ever *legal* in California?
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
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
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!
root@127.0.0.1
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
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).
Give out as many email addresses as you wish to be (partially) responsible for.
Go ahead.
"What's the frequency Kenneth?"
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..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
" (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
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).
"I like systems, their application excepted", George Sand (French)
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...
Wouldn't this law apply to all users who use Windows or anything with open shares as well, considering that is "file sharing"?
It applies to commercial distribution, not copyright as a whole.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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...
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.
If your email address is with a non-US entity, the DoJ can go swivel.
s .helgrim.com email address, provided free here in Ireland, contact me through my site.
Therefore, if anybody wanst a prestigous yourname@the.prosecutor.has.herpes.and.a.leaky.as
I'd love to see a video from the courtroom as the charges are read...
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, ybt bss abj. Tb bhgfvqr. Syl n xvgr.
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
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.
excerpt....
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
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.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Yeah, thats right, no email address here AND I am sharing a song.
Using klank3 encoding here is a pirated copy of a randomly selected Britney Spears song:
.
The encoding is ingenious actually. I simply remove all the crap from the final stream, and use an ASCII code 46 sentinel for the end of the stream. My encoding scheme is one of the few methods that actually improves the sound quality.
I recently participated in a beta test of some of your email-tracking software. I forwarded it to ten of my friends, as requested, but have not as of yet received a check for the compensation that was promised for my participation. Is there something else I need to do to claim the money?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
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'
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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?
County Jail? Room and board + three square meals a day AND I don't have to work for a year? Throw the book at me baby! Meetcha at the public library Andy Taylor!
Oregonians have always known that Californians are arrogant, crazy freaks. A whole shitload of the fuckers moved into our state in the '80's, proving beyond a doubt that all of our cherished stereotypes about Californians were not only accurate, but in fact understated. Fortunately the discovery that our dreary, rainy winters last about 9 months was good enough to drive many of them away.
One of my fervent hopes is that global warming will make the constant rain a year-round phenomenon, shaking loose the rest like fleas on a freshly-collared dog.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?