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
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.
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.
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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...
"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.
But hotmail would have your IP address for when you first created the account. Oh duh! You'd use an Internet cafe.
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!
Beacuse nobody ever specifically banned it?
There's a possible apocryphal tale that when the crime of buggery (which was used as the legal term) was introduced in Victorian Britain, Queen Victoria vetoed a similar law banning lesbian sexual acts as she refused to believe they were possible.
root@127.0.0.1
Queen Victoria vetoed a similar law banning lesbian sexual acts as she refused to believe they were possible.
I believe they are impossible too. I demand that you show me the evidence!
"Luck is the residue of design" -- Branch Rickey
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).
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.
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 ----
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)
but you COULD sign up for one of the temporary email addresses, you know the one's that expire after so many hours... how they gonna track that?
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.
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
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'
There's also this:
Guess that means no more networked windows boxes for california employees, since Windows can share files with a right-click. And no more Outlook, because THAT can share files too, even when you don't want to.Come to think of it, a ban on file-sharing software pretty much kills all email, all cd-burning programs, etc.
I guess this is why people consider Arnie to be funniest when he's trying to be serious.
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
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.
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?