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."

Comments

Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[ackthpt]

The signing was hailed by the bill's sponsor, the Motion Picture Association of America,

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.

Was he not paying attention?

[UID1000000]

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?

sure, he can have my email address

[Indy1]

its either billg@microsoft.com

or

president@whitehouse.gov (or was it .com ?:) )

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[flyboy974]

Bill, could you please write me back. I would like to talk with you about your quest to rule the world.

Your bud, god@heaven.com

P.S. - There can be only one.

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[DudemanX]

Dad, I always knew that you would sell out one day.

Your Son, jesus@heaven.org

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[Alsee]

Actually the law is far worse than that. It does not seem like anyone has yet posted the fact that the actual text of the law requires not only an e-mail address, but requires you to include your TRUE NAME AND ADDRESS. Sigh. Fucking stupid law, pardon the french.

-

HA!

[Malicious]

ipiratemusic@hotmail.com
anonymimityismyfriend@hotmail.com
youcantfindme@hotmail.com

Need I continue?

What's with these laws?

[strictfoo]

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"?

Re:What's with these laws?

[Bastian]

The idea is that if take one act and turn it into several crimes by breaking the act into little pieces and making each of those illegal (in addition to the primary act), you will be able to lock someobody up for a very long time if they are caught committing even a very minor offense. This is supposed to act as a deterrent.

I'm sure even a kindergartener could find several logical flaws and unfounded assumptions inherent in this line of thinking, and anyone old enough to have research skills could also find a huge stack of numbers that also show that this is silly. Still, it is the basis for a large percentage of the USA's legal opus, including some laws that most people seem to really like (hate crimes, for example).

(completely unrelated, I swear)Fun Fact: Did you know the USA has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other democracy (and most other authorotarian states) in the world?

Violation of rights?

[uchi]

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.

That explains why...

[kevman42]

I've seen a lot more files from this user: illbeback@mailinator.com

Information wants to be free

[Anonymous Coward]

as in beer.

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.

You forgot the most important bill

[antifoidulus]

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

Text of the bill

[the_demiurge]

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

What about my own music or video?

[dmeranda]

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.

No problem!

[Just Some Guy]

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".

So???

[El]

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...

Lots of questions

[LS]

* 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

Video Games

[adamjone]

Also he signed a bill to limit the sale of video games.

Ummm... no, that's not at all what he did. Talk about blowing things out of proportion. Directly from the article:

AB 1793, by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, requires stores to post signs and offer brochures about the industry's game-rating system.

The bill only requires that video game retailers provide information on the rating system. It in no way inhibits the sale of any game to anyone. In fact, he indicated that he would strike down any bill that included any such ban.

New Poll Idea

[mblase]

Email address used for file sharing?

* asdf@asdf.com
* schwartzenegger@california.gov
* sit@home.org
* eat@joes.com
* cowboyneal@slashdot.org

Re:New Poll Idea

[gfody]

com.dotat@atdot.com

Re:It will never survive.

[EzInKy]

There's no right to anonymous free speech -- one of the important issues regarding free speech is the responsibility for what you say.

According to the Supreme Court there is.

If you can find a law that protects your anonymity as a right, you're really on to something.

Here is Justice Steven's opinion:

"Justice Steven's opinion for the Court note that arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Justice Stevens said "quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent." Stevens concluded "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

Re:We noticed, but there's a good question.

[dze]

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!

Newspaper on seat?

[HPNpilot]

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).

Utter bollocks

[ectoraige]

If your email address is with a non-US entity, the DoJ can go swivel.

Therefore, if anybody wanst a prestigous yourname@the.prosecutor.has.herpes.and.a.leaky.ass .helgrim.com email address, provided free here in Ireland, contact me through my site.

I'd love to see a video from the courtroom as the charges are read...

RTFB

[originalhack]

If you RTFB, it is clear the the work must be commercial and you must not have a license to distribute it, otherwise this does not apply.

excerpt....

SECTION 1. Section 653aa is added to the Penal Code, to read:
653aa. (a) Any person, except a minor, who is located in
California, who, knowing that a particular recording or audiovisual
work is commercial, knowingly electronically disseminates all or
substantially all of that commercial recording or audiovisual work to
more than 10 other people without disclosing his or her e-mail
address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding
one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Any minor who violates subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine
not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Any minor who
commits a third or subsequent violation of subdivision (a) is
punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000),
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or
by both that imprisonment and fine.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply:
(1) To a person who electronically disseminates a commercial
recording or audiovisual work to his or her immediate family, or
within his or her personal network, defined as a restricted access
network controlled by and accessible to only that person or people in
his or her immediate household.
(2) If the copyright owner, or a person acting under the authority
of the copyright owner, of a commercial recording or audiovisual
work has explicitly given permission for all or substantially all of
that recording or audiovisual work to be freely disseminated
electronically by or to anyone without limitation.
(3) To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright
owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner
to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a
commercial audiovisual work or recording.