Slashdot Mirror
Jail Time For P2P Developers?
Kjella writes "A Califorian bill introduced last week would, if passed, expose file-swapping software developers to fines of up to $2,500 per charge, or a year in jail, if they don't take 'reasonable care' to prevent their software from being used to commit crime. C|Net has the story, as well as a link to the actual bill. By the overly broad definition of P2P software, almost any piece of internet software could be liable. This browser is certainly able to download and upload files ('Save as ...' and upload forms). Are Microsoft, Opera and Mozilla.org taking 'reasonable care' to prevent me from exchanging anything illegal? Of course, I never go there, but a friend of my uncle's third cousin's brother told me warez download sites work just fine ..."
They ought to just declare HTTP, FTP, UDP, TCP, and IP illegal. After all, they're used for almost 100% of digital piracy. It would really save the imbeciles that draft laws these days a lot of time and effort if they just took that logical step. It's not like it would be any significant change from what they're doing now anyway since they obviously have no clue how the technology they're drafting against works.
In fact, let's just declare the intarweb illegal and impose fines for anyone who uses it. Then, we can begin our slow, painful descent into obscurity and technological darkness. It'll be great when we finally get so anti-progress that we're back to accusing people of being witches and burning them in the town square again.
Here's a better idea. People could stop voting for candidates who's agenda starts and stops with business interests. They could start voting for people who are actually interested in representing the, well, people. They could stop pretending there's really any such things as a "red" or "blue" state candidate. They could realize that it's time we purged the whole system and got some new blood in - people who actually care about the country and want to see it succeed.
I'm not holding my breath. Holding your government responsible for being.. well... responsible... is hard work, and a lot of Americans don't seem to like that. Just maintain the status quo, even though the status quo isn't really what you think it is anymore.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
Several companies, including Audible Magic and Shawn Fanning's Snocap , have demonstrated technology that could be used to block trades of copyrighted music, although no such tool has yet been publicly shown for Hollywood movies. Some file-swapping companies say these tools would be impractical to use on a widespread basis.
That quote says it all -- the implication is clearly that all p2p software is used exclusively or nearly exlusively for illegal filesharing of copyrighted media. What frightens me about the idea of using DRM or other crippled technology for media is when that becomes standard, where does it leave an independent filmmaker like myself? Those fat cats in Hollywood never stop to think that some of us actually produce content, as opposed to simply consuming it.
I Want To Believe
Time to pull my Java Web Server (toyws) from SourceForge. :-)
[Insert pithy quote here]
It's about time we go after the creators of TCP/IP.
making Operating system vendors viable for jail, if they don't take enough care to prevent their OS to be hijacked and used for criminal activities?
Just because I can imagine doing a hippopotamus, doesn't mean I'd like to do it.
Does this imply that reasonable steps should be taken by gun manufactures to prevents guns from being used for crimes?
Oh I'm sorry that's unconstitutional...
Sig (appended to the end of comments you post, 120 chars)
Anyone who posts a reply on this thread (including me), should be banned from the Gene Pool.
This is so blatantly open and ill-defined that thinking it can go forward should be a capital crime.
Oh, FP -- maybe.
This post encoded with ROT26. If you can read it, you've violated the DMCA. Handcuffs please, sergeant.
P2P is nothing new, it's just a buzzword. The Internet itself is fundamentally one big peer-to-peer network, so they should start by indicting these folks who are, after all, responsible for the greatest copyright violation vehicle in history.
wouldn't that make him a friend of his fourth cousin? (not a genealogy expert)
~/.sig: No such file or directory
I wonder if Xerox has taken "resonable care" to ensure the no copyright materials are being copied by their machines. I don't think so. Why the double standard? Could it be that certain non-print media corporations are making bigger campaign contributions than are the print media corporations?
i'm sure many will say this, but is anyone surprised that this came out of the state that is home to the **AA's????? i'm not. :)
President Bush Supporter
So does this mean we can hold gun makers, people who build cars and knives to the same level of responsiblity? Lets do a little math: Gun Deaths last year approx 16k = $40,000,000 Traffic Deaths last year 43k = $107,500,000 I am just counting deaths, sounds like we could balance the budget if we include anything that might cause a crime also.
Sometimes I wish computers were less friendly.
Imagine if Salman Rushdie had been held liable for all the bad things that other people did after he published The Satanic Verses.
Chip H.
I wonder how it would go down if COLT had to take reasonable care to prevent its guns from being used to commit crime?
Linux/Open Source/Anti Microsoft News
um.. I mean a friend of his thrid cousins brother... I guess that makes it a friend of a fifth cousin?
sorry about that, I realized it right after I posted...
~/.sig: No such file or directory
So you can combat this better. The next hundred years is going to be a fight for technology, a fight to keep it open, and a fight of companies against "evil commie programmers", since they can't adapt to the new technolgoy
Apparently no one in any sort of power position has the slightest idea what they are talking about. Do we blame gun makers for gun deaths? No, they are tools.
IANAL, but I doubt the bill will be viable. It sounds like it has a major effect on interstate commerce, which is an area of Federal jurisdiction. Also, copyright is enforced at the Federal level. To me, this looks like political posturing.
None the less, I am greatly bothered that someone jerk California of all places is trying to outlaw software development.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
Until trusted computing kicks in. I know this is off-topic and feel free to mod me as such, but this TC business worries me and anyone who doesn't know what this is should read that document...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Guns and Ammo manufacturers
Car manufacturers
The scientists that developed the atom bomb
The Heads and Board of all government agencies
Your mom
Trees that produce solid branches that _could_ be used as clubs.
etc.
Sometimes the people that create laws need to get their heads checked, I swear.
Machine9dotNet
Both are capable of sharing files between 2 computers over the internet, thus, being labeled as peer-to-peer. Are the makers of these standards going to get this fine too?
Do you promise not to use this for illegal purposes under penalty of (my) jailtime?
Yes
Cool, Click here to search for Shrek2.
Either that or move out of cali quick..
Word of mouth would have the same impact.("Don't use X, it's horribly exploitable!"). Hence leading to less use, less buying of that product, and the developers go out of business.
At least, that's how it should work. Right/wrong/naive?
Will CD/DVD burner manufacturers be required to "check in" with the RIAA/MPAA/BSA before burning music, video, or executable files?
There *is* such thing as a slippery slope.
It's already happened with video surveillance. People have gotten so used to video surveillance that when another Orwellian scenario comes about, one of the arguments for complacency is "There are already video cameras everywhere, it's not like you have any privacy anyway"
Be diligent. Write your representatives now, and try working with well-reasoned logic, resisting the impulse to tell them directly what pigfuckers they are.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Let's ban cars while we're at it. They can be used to kill! Clearly they're a threat to society. Along with scissors, paper, pens, PHB, and people in general.
:)
Let's ban reproduction, because people are clearly capable of violating the law! *cough*China anyone?*cough*
Or so this mindset of insanity would lead you. The moral of the story is to not blame the technology, and especially the folks behind it, but the individual who is actually committing the crime with the said tool. *gasp* Such a novel concept..
Now go ahead and mod me down to -1 Redunant. You know you want to.
"An infinite number of monkeys typing into GNU emacs would never make a good program."
By my calculations, you are correct. A cousin's brother, is always a cousin. And if the uncle has a third cousin (his great, great grandfather/mother is the same), then presumably you share a great,great,great granfather/mother with your uncle. Therefore fourth cousin.
Cousin Definitions
I think the Internet is already dead!
actually trying to stymie computer science research for itself? Horrible precidents and views are being taught in this country about preperation, preservation, achieveing goals. Not just for compsci, but nearly everything. Suit.. jailtime.. masked freedoms.. Argh I'm so frustrated with the direction this country is heading (and values/ideals it's teaching to the newer generations of tinkerers) that I can't form a coherent post.
This country is starting to blow.
NoFX's Idiots Are Taking Over is the new themesong for the USA.
The new Craftsman X-25 flat #2 screwdriver: Bill SB-96 compliant. "We have taken precautions to ensure that this screwdriver meets the requirements of 'reasonable care' to ensure that it may not be used to committ a crime. The screwdriver head will spontaneously turn into molten steel if you do not call you local enforcement office an obtain a license for any of the following activities: jimmying, scraping, prying, lifting or plain old screwdriving. If you are not sure, please contact your local enforcement office. Note: Only works with sDRM-(screwDriver Rights Management) compliant screwheads.
You're only in danger if unincorporated.
And hence no more copyleft/creative commons in california..
Oh, and that just made Magnatune.com illegal for californians as well... (or is it californianasswell)
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
After all, whatever your thoughts on the company or their products, one MUST admit that their products 'allow for file sharing' and it's fair to say that reasonable precautions to prevent illegal copying have not been taken.
How about Apple? Or the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley? What about the FSF? I'm pretty sure they have written software that allows for files to be transferred.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
You'll find that most of the stuff in there is protected by copyright.
View a website, send your browser author to jail. Ok, in the case of Microsoft that would be fitting, but for differenct crimes against humanity.
This is a silly bill and I'd like to see them try the same with copiers, fax machines, cameras and recording devices. In fact, they've already tried those and failed. This will fail too, for the same reasons.
The only quetion is whether it fails before or after it passes. After requires ruining some poor schmuck's life to overturn the bill.
KFG
You'll lock up computer programmers for writing powerful software, but the makers of assault weapons are good to go?
Good grief you need to have a look at your priorities.
If they are going to punish a developer for the actions of people using whatever he developed, why don't they go punishing guns factories for all the actions of people using guns ?
Sometimes I feel so lucky, so lucky that I'm not from USA and that I don't live there (and those times are more and more often as time goes by).
Pupeno
What does "reasonable care in preventing the use of their software to swap copyrighted music or movies--or child pornography" mean?
In other words, if I were Bram Cohen (Bittorrent's author), what if's would I have to put in my code in order to detect those illegal uses?
BTW, this should only affect developers who live in California, right?
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
When Guns are used to commit crime, are the manufactures fined for it?
I didnt read the fine article, but whoever is pushing for this, should fund a project that creates a P2P SDK that underlies the protection of their property.
Its so aggravating to think that developers should be forced to protect _OTHER_ peoples property... Why is this our buisness? Are we getting reimbursed for spending our time to research and develop a scheme to protect the property of a multibillion dollar industry?
No, we're not..
holding p2p developers liable for copyright files swapped using their software = good holding gun manufacturers liable for murders caused by their products = bad
These stories of various laws designed to address issues of technology and piracy fall into a very weird area of what I call "news that's not exactly news."
This is a bill that if passed could have dangerous repercussions while at the same time be insanely hard to enforce and would doubtlessly cause even more confusion and problems. It's important.
Yet at the same time it's another story of people who are both technically ignorant and beholden to various special interests pushing another dumb law. So it's not news, it's pretty much par for the course.
Though this statement is a bit snarky, I think it actually is important - are we becoming numb to this incredible stupidity and pandering, so much so its harder and harder to fight it?
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
So what happens when the software is created by many developers in one big open source orgy? Who are they gonna go after then?
I feel that hospitals should amputate all limbs from, and lobotomize, new born children. While a shred of thinking power remains, and any means of locomotion is present, there is a chance that someday in the future they might engage in some kind of illegal activity. Everyone is guilty until proven innocent, the perfect world, think how peaceful it would be!!!
Guns can be used to do illegal things (kill people, rob them)
P2P can be used to do legal things (share open-source software)
Guns can be used to do legal things (hunt)
And now...
P2P software manufacturers are liable if someone uses their product to do something illegal?
Gun manufacturers are liable if someone uses their product to do something illegal?
How about drawing an analogy from this line...
Guns don't kill people, people kill people
So... when are they going to pass a law requiring gun makers to take reasonable care to prevent their product from being used to commit crimes? Or is it because guns hurt puny, worthless individuals and P2P hurts large, rich corporations that the congress-critters care?
Just a thought...
btw... I'm not in favor of gun control, but if you're gonna regulate something make it something meaningful.
...is "may". It's not illegal, it's ambiguous.
As an amendment to the bill, they should make sure that manufacturers of hammers take "due care" to make sure that their products can't be used to smash windows, or to be turned against other humans.
I mean, he *did* invent the Internet (or Interweb, or whatever that thing is called...)
Seriously, though... if I run an email server, am I going to get a "cease and desist" becuase people could use it (in a very straightforward manner) to swap files?
Sheesh.
Of course, I never go there, but a friend of my uncle's third cousin's brother told me warez download sites work just fine
Wouldn't your uncle's third cousin's brother also be your uncle's third cousin?
"Well kids, you tried your best, and you failed. The lesson is, never try."
I take it this idiot senator believes all the world's coders live in the US, right? And that Russians and Poles and Brits and Aussies are all too backward to write P2P code..?
Justin.
Bored with idiot yank politicians from GWB to AS and on.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
A vast majority of P2P software cannot be run without Windows. Ph43r!!!
Two years ago New Jersey passed a law requiring development of "smart guns" that will only fire for their owner. (google link http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:92OkU_ffrwkJ: www.nydailynews.com/news/wn_report/v-pfriendly/sto ry/46026p-43317c.html+nj+gun+law+user&hl=en&lr=lan g_en)
Maybe they should fine AT&T/Lucent $2500 for every box of cable they ship out. Maybe they should fine Best Buy and Staples for not asking every customer buying an ethernet cable or network card, wireless access point, router or monitor if they're going to use it to traffic in P2P! Maybe they should fine TRANE air management systems $2500 for not ensuring that they fail inject enough valence ions into every heat exchanger system installed in public places to skew wireless signals... Maybe they should fine the power commission $2500 for every customer they supply electricity to for not ensuring that the power will not be used to power a computer to communicate for the purposes of trafficing in P2P!
Please, spell-check your blurbs. Thank you.
JoloK
This could definitely turn out bad. Wait for Microsoft to say "Here's our reasonable precautions. By default all web access in IE goes through our private proxies that screen illeagal content. Oh yeah and btw, we scan what sites you go to and sell the lists to advertisers. Which are conveniently ommitted from our adware detection software."
I CAN'T WAIT!
The Uber
http://www.tulg.org/
http://devurandom.livejournal.com/
Manufacturers of pens must be held liable if they do not take reasonable care that their pens aren't used to write libel, or to write things that support the cause of terrorists.
The supreme court has already ruled in similar cases that the maker of a tool can't be held liable for misuse of the tool if that misuse is not the major use of the tool. Bittorrent, for example, can be shown to have primarily beneficial uses - so you can not ban the use of it, or attack the author for the actions of some bad apples.
This would be like suing the manufacturer of a baseball bat because someone used it to commit a murder. That doesn't follow, and the court system already has presidence along these lines that any lawyer worth his salt will bring forward in court.
They can pass the law, but it will be struck down in the courts once they try to enforce it.
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
With that logic watch out
silverware companies
auto makers
Architects
etc.
Anyone who makes things that can be used for illegal purposes.
technologically informed ./ers mock at this new expression of hired corporate legislation, it slowly becomes the law of the land.
... Average American...
Another milestone, another passive moment in the life of the pathetic, gullible, ignorant, socially and politically inept creature called...
Sad, sad, sad, sad...
Yam, yam, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade, uga booga, yam, yam, yade, yade
After all, cars have been used in the commission of crimes-REAL crimes, too, not mere copyright violation.
In fact, jail's too good for them. Cars have been used to kill. Give 'em the death sentence! That'll larn 'em!
In an extraordinary move, the US are taking God to court over allegations that natural elements are being used for criminal activities.
"Yes, it's true. Fire is the main cause of arson and we have to look at this seriously", said an official.
God was unavailable for comment.
Howsa'bout...
"P2P doesn't share files, people share files."
"A microprocessor... is a terrible thing to waste." --
GeneralEmergency
Oh, my f*ing g0d! I'm tired of all these lawyers, judges, and "representatives" deciding that more laws banning certain "unfavorable" or "undersirable" behavior is the way to go. That's it. Someone who writes a program that can be extrememly beneficial in knowledge distribution goes to jail because some people use his program in an illegal manner. This litigation behavior is quite reminiscint(sp?) of eugenics
If that's this proceedure works, lets just jail EVERY inventer of ANYTHING that's used improperly because the inventer should have known better! OMFG! I feel sorry for the people who live in California. There is no way I'd move out there because I'd be afraid of getting sued by someone for stepping on their lawn, accidentally dropping a piece of paper, saying something that "offfends." Americans need to get off their collective lazy A$$ES and Stop being so F*ing SENSITIVE!
It's a disgrace to now be from a country that went to war across an entire world, assisting it's allies and turning back a plague on mankind. How did we go from that glorious time to this sniveling little coward of a nation who think that everyone is owed something and you can get millions of dollars only because someone said something that hurt your feelings!
Cliff Claven
K.E.G. Party Chairman
Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
guns, ammo, cars, and baseball bats have all been mentioned, but what about alcohol and tobacco? how many criminals smoke and drink? how many alcohol related deaths are there per year?
oh wait, you mean big tobacco contributes to political campaigns?
Why not then send to jail car makers, after all they are used as gateaway vehicles, to smuggle drugs, weapons, etc. How about gun makers? Kitchen knives makers? hell, even pillow makers should go to jail if they don't take precautions to stop people from killing someone else with their pillows. Almost everyone under the sun should be banned according to their logic.
[alk]
We used SMB shares in college to share all kinds of stuff. So when are they gonna throw Bill in jail? It's express purpose is peer to peer file sharing. I just read the law and according to it's language, it would be a completely legitimate bust. In other words, I'm pretty sure that no competent technical person was consulted during the drafting of this bill.
And while they're at it, ban guns because we *might* shoot someone (oh, wait, this is CA.. they've already done that)
Ban talking because I *might* shout "FIRE!" in a crowded theater
Ban cars because I *might* use one as a getaway vehicle in a robbery, or run someone over.
Ban fists because I *might* assault someone with them
Ban penises (penisi?) because....
Real programmers use "copy con program.exe"
to prevent their software from being used to commit crime.
It's a good thing that most copyright infringement is a civil, not criminal, offense. Check out the US Code section 506 .
What about the development tools used to create the P2P proggies, like perl... C++. If this law applies to the P2P, how about applying the stupid law into the tool that make it. If that's the case, I'll start writing P2P apps with all the Microsoft tools I can get my hands on, like VB, C++, or .NET
Then we'll see how fast this law gets shot down.
They don't understand technology, even something as simple as FTP or a freakin' browser, and yet they try to regulate behavior around the tech without pulling their heads out of their asses long enough to know what they're doing or the ramifications of such legislation. I can email home (to my Gmail acct, natch) warez; so does that mean that all the email vendors need to make attachment sending illegal? Ok, how about if I email myself just a registration code? How do you block plain text?
If I lived in CA, which I don't, I'd have some very unforgiving questions to ask of the author of this bill. Clearly, there's retardedness at work.
See, I've read some of the comments here... people going after P2P software, and Internet protocols. What you don't realize, is there are crimes committed out there by people *without* those "tools of evil".
Which is why I propose a law against something that *every* criminal does while committing a crime: breathe. Yes, if we make breathing illegal, no more crimes! And this covers a broad scope of crimes, not just digital copyright. If we outlaw breathing, the rest of us can live (or not) safely.
FLR
That is not the right interpretation. It means, Johnny Pirate who shares his Jimi Hendrix MP3s for free, NOT Jimi's Ghost (or whoever owns copyright) doing so.
Sometimes seventeen/Syllables aren't enough to/Express a complete
One of the wonders of software is that, through use of standards and abstraction, software will work on any kind of file. In layered networking models, for example, each layer is independent of the others to a great extent. The wiring, routers, transport protocols, and low-level network software don't know or care whether they are carrying bytes for a web page, a VOIP call, a Linux upgrade, or a bootlegged copy of a soon-to-be released "Major Motion Picture"(TM). DRM muddies the waters of abstraction and generalization by requiring specialization that is contextually sensitive to the type of data, the rights of the sender and the rights of the recipient. Just think about all the combinations of types of files, types of DRM restrictions, and combinations of senders and recipients (including fair use combinations where the sender and recipient are the same person, but different devices).
The point is that computers do not care about the subtleties of data types because there were designed, at their core, not to care. That lack of care is what enables the machines to do so much and be so extensible. Taking "reasonable care" is unreasonable.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
Does that mean Al Gore will ultimately go to prison since he invented the whole internet in the first place?
Osama Bin Laden probably uses Microsoft Word. I say Bill should be held accountable. And Mr. Bush uses Microsoft Word, too. Oh sh-- ... One degree of separation. Who would have thought?
<sigh> Can't we just send all these "idjets" off to the moon or something?
(/me hangs his head; exit stage left)
--Udo.
Yet another retarded California law.
I stay away from that state.
Berto
Gun makers should go to jail if they don't make their guns unuseable for crimes.
there was a way to slashdot our congressmen...
Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
... is any mention in the linked article of the political affiliation of state Sen. Murray, the author of the bill. Yes, he is a Democrat. Which just goes to show you that socialists can whore for RIAA and the recording industry just as expertly as their politically opposite numbers.
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
That's already been proposed.
/
See http://linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3642/1
When are they going to slap fines on gun makers for people using guns to commit crimes? Car makers for drunk drivers? I mean give me a break.
I use bittorrent all the time... To download Linux distros. I do not find most music worth the bother anymore.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Hmmm, so in the future we'll be seeing some changes, for example:
- Crowbar manufacturing companies will be held liable if a criminal uses their product to gain unauthorized entrance to any building.
Isn't the law a beautiful thing!
I find this to be an absolute farce. How can legislation of this sort be considered? Well, I'm being rhetorical. The reason for the bill is due to the effective lobby of the entertainment business. This in and of itself is not a negative thing. The lobby that it. But the results, this bill, is absurd.
Another big American lobby, the NRA, often uses the catch phrase "Guns don't kill people, People kill People". Which is true, but the argument is weak and depending on your stance on gun control a case can be made either way. But I digress.
Is it not equally valid to say, "Bit torrents don't steal music, people steal music"? However, in America, the lobby pressure has lead the legislatures into madness.
Assualt Rifle? From my cold dead hand!
eDonkey? Over my dead body!
Madness!
If I'm not mistaken, you can't force people to prevent crimes. It would be like arresting a shop owner for having no call-police security button under their counter. It would be like requiring automobile manufacturers to prevent cars from speeding.
... the "We don't know how to solve it so we will make it illegal for others not to solve it" bill.
chris at darkrock dot co dot uk
http colon slash slash www dot darkrock dot co dot uk
You work for Fox News too, a-boom-tish!
Even more troubling is that Philip Morris would be allowed to sell a product that proves to be harmfull in all cases but P2P developpers should be fined for making a product that can be harmfull if not employed lawfully? Well not that im surprised, but this shows to be nothing but another proof that laws aren't there to protect people but money... God Bless America!
Another natural consequence, all meaningful p2p development will take place outside the US. Moreover, it'll probably have the desired effect of making the network even more transparent, ala .
Next they're going to make guns illegal because they kill people, and alcohol illeagl because it makes people crazy (thank you, senator Volestead.)
----
"I worry about my child and the Internet all the time, even though she's too young to have logged on yet. Here's what I worry about. I worry that 10 or 15 years from now, she will come to me and say 'Daddy, where were you when they took freedom of the press away from the Internet?'"
--Mike Godwin, Electronic Frontier Foundation
Let lawyers design 'legally critical algorithms' like that, and programmers to implement them. Imagine it. Unclear specifications (as in most companies), a lot of debugging (as in most companies) constant changes resulting no deadlines ,no product, and no legal trouble. Safe, easy, life-time job and you dont have to be good at it.
and the death throes are a thrilling spectacle
there is a divide between those who understand the true implications of p2p and those who don't
and the fight is between those ignorant of the implications, and those who get it
every new technology changes society- the gun, the printing press, the atom bomb, currency, etc.
technology doesn't change morality, but it does require that morality be rephrased to fit in with a new reality, as the old shortcuts don't apply anymore
"stealing is bad" is such a mental shorthand
but does the concept "stealing" philosophically apply to infinite effortless copying of electrons?
no, it doesn't
it really, really doesn't
and you either get that, or you don't
morality hasn't changed, there is no increase in lawlessness, there is only a conflict between those who understand how a new technology changes society, and those who don't, and in fact, in defense of dying ways, the dinosaurs are the ones who commit the real moral infractions in their struggle to maintain a dead era: media distribution via concrete media
cds and lps and cassettes cost something to make, there is an economics to them: supply and demand
but p2p is infinite supply, and infinite demand: there are no traditional economics to it
and across that divide of understanding the dinosaur of the old reality struggles to survive, but is only fighting inevitability
with each new, desperate and hysterical grasping at straws that i hear of such as this stupid law from california now, i only begin to feel more and more pity, and disgust for the dying dinosaur
just die already you ignorant fools
you can't fight progress
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Just a guess, I only know a tiny bit about US politics, but has the representative who proposed this bill ever recieved money (for his campaign or whatever) off the RCAA or MPAA?
Based on previous bills, I bet its very likely.
If so, its nice to see democracy working as it does: Bills like this that only a small percentage of the population want but have wealthy people/companies backers want get passed while Bills say to do with the enviroment which nearly everyone want except a few wealthy people/companies, fail miserably.
Yay for corporate democracy.
Is that, say, a message box at start up saying you may not share copyrighted data?
:-)
I mean, it's impossible for the software to "know" and stop you from sharing copyrighted stuff...
And that's of course not restricted to P2P software.
Hmm, AT&T should publish an April Fool's RFC for "the copyright bit" like they did with "the evil bit".
Then software could at least respect that one.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
I think my vision of the US (and the vision of a lot of my fellow Europeans) had changed since 2001. What we thought it was a country involved in freedom is going towards a country dominated by (bad) laws and politics.
This law is one of the craziest things I've ever seen. You're getting your freedoms totally destroyed.
Please change things before it's too late
I thought California was supposed to be the progressive state?
...recordings or audiovisual works over the Internet who fails to exercise reasonable care...
Evidently, other large scale networks, including the Internet 2, are not covered by this law....
What about copy machines, I think xerox should be fined because of people who use their copy machines to copy books and other material. Oh, and what about canon for making scanners that allow us to reproduce any document on our printer. And while we are pointing the finger at developers, we might as well also go after sony because of the VCR's they make that allow me to tape the NFL on Fox. (insert comment on how stupid this bill is)
All you have to do is call a function that scans the file looking for copyrighted material. If the function returns true, don't allow the file to be shared.
So, really, it would be one line of code.
if (copyrightCheck(file)) { disallowSharing() }
this sig limit is too small to put anything good h
*sigh* I'm probably being a bit harsh here. But honestly, you're not coming off so soft in your comment which I'm replying to.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Does it mean the end of Freenet as we know it? Because its developers did take more than 'reasonable care' to prevent their software from being controlled in any way, which of course includes having a true free speech medium, but also a platform for any kind of crime, like illegal pornography. Is it possible to stop illegal pornography and copyright infringement, but allow free speech, privacy and anonymity for people living in oppressive regimes? That is something that needs to be done quickly. Freenet is more than just yet another P2P network. We cannot let it fail.
Sincerely,
Pan Tarhei Hosé, PhD.
"Homo sum et cogito ergo odi profanum vulgus et libido."
Microsoft's first defense would be that Microsoft does not live in California. Their second defense would be that it wasn't they that provided the illegal software, it was Dell and IBM and HPaq. Microsoft knew not what they were doing with it...
When Xerox first came out with comercial copiers they were sued almost immediately. They succesfully defended that they had substantial non-infringing uses. As for current difficulties in making copies, it isn't that hard if you cut the bindings and use the double sided auto feeder. Also, currently places like kinkos require you to sign a form when you make collor laser copies of images from books saying you are using it for educational pureposes. That was a dam good copy too that I got when I used their equipment. I highly doubt I could tell the difference without a magnifying glass.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
(I got modded Troll for a post in which, while I might have been mistaken, I had no trollish intentions - might as well blow all karma and get modded flamebait as well.)
Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
If passed and signed into law
Politicians introduce all kinds of crap bills, knowing that it will never, ever pass. It then gets watered down, and what they really wanted does get passed.
So what does this guy really want?
I mean come on ban p2p programs from transfering MP3 all that will do is move poepl on to a dif file extention/ dif file format.
We have Ogg vorbis and flack etc... What about a regulatory authority that produces a special key for any material produced by an artist like yourself.
A music example:
Dave Fancella is an artist who distributes his music for free in a non royaly format - ogg vorbis. He can request a key from the regulatory authority and make it public. Once public, the p2p software can accept its distribution on the network. So, I just type in the key and I can download it on P2P. There is no obligation on anmy artist to make their keys public so lets assume an artist doesnt want his/her music on p2p - they just keep their key private so their work cannot be propagated.
What do you think of my idea? All it takes is a regulatory body to generate these keys (codes) per song or per album - whatever way you want.
The p2p software is programmed to only work with these codes which are securely updated into the software. No key - no music, same could apply for movies etc .....
By this standard we should hold gun makers responsible if they don't exercise "reasonable care" to ensure the gun won't be used to kill an innocent person. Give me a break!
We better start now, before this law is passed, and begin to move Silicon Valley to somewhere outside of the Terminator's jurisdiction. I'm thinking maybe Hawaii; water on all four sides, great waves, great weather, and we have the women.
Of course; there's always New Jersey. As long as you stay away from Camden, you'll be alright. Jersey sounds better; I wouldn't need to move very far.
I'm f#$king magic!
This should help get the software industry out of California. The backers of the bill are already moving jobs out of California to India and China.
Any start-up contemplating P2P will not try California. Other start-ups will have to wonder if their new paradigm busting technology will share the same fate and they too will by-pass California.
Imagine what would have happened to Silicon Valley if Fairchild had had this kind of political clot.
If passed and signed into law, it could expose file-swapping software developers to fines of up to $2,500 per charge, or a year in jail, if they don't take "reasonable care" in preventing the use of their software to swap copyrighted music or movies--or child pornography.
How is one to ensure that he is using "reasonable care" in order to comply with the statute? You can't. It's impossible to know what they mean by "reasonable care".
It seems pretty obvious that the people writing the bill don't know even know what they mean by reasonable care.
If noone can figure out what it is that a statute makes illegal, then it violates Due Process and is unconstitutional.
They have gotten much safer with design improvements for accidental discharge over the years. Here's one example, hammer blocks on revolvers. Used to be with revolvers it was possible to accidently drop it, the hammer might get slammed forward and the firing pin hit the primer on the cartridge. Now they have sliding steel bars/ hammer blocks that are placed between the two until such a time as the hammer is actually fully cocked back, something that requires deliberate action on the owners part,either manually in the case of a single action directly to the hammer (ie, a cowboy style revolver) or by a long trigger pull in a double action. This makes an accidental discharge very hard to do. Numerous other examples of improved tech over the years in that direction,such as grip safeties,etc. In fact I'd say just in general terms it is one of "the" safest techs out there now when it comes to the strictly mechanical features department.
Small picky point with the analogy, no biggee though.
About the only way that P2P will get legitimised fairly is if the files themselves have a voluntary and built in and pretty painless and automatic way to detect copyright license to see if it's legit or not for you to download. Some sort of peoples generic DRM that isn't developed by "the industry" but by the P2P coder guys and the swapping community. Maybe a variation on the md5 sums or along those lines.
Fine Hollywood. When they make DVDs, which I believe the law would classify as software, they make it possible to share a movie. CSS obviously isn't a reasonable-enough step, as it was cracked almost instantly.
"You know you're narcissistic when you quote yourself in your sigs." -- PRoPAiN!
Well as a European I've got say that I find it quite funny the amount of time and effort that America seems to spend making and enforcing utterly stupid laws.
I suppose the next thing is you'll have one of your media lobby paid up congress critters trying to make it illegal to read as this could lead you to develop the skills to possibly infringe on company Xs IP.
Meanwhile the rest of the world, and especially China, don't give a shit about your silly IP & Patent laws and will continue to reverse engineer everything you produce whilst learning how to do it faster/cheaper/better. So guess who'll be the ones writing tomorrows innovative software and guess where tomorrows sweat shops and call centres will be ?
Hint: The programmers won't be in the country where you can't do anything without fear of being sued into the ground for IP/copyright/patent infringment.
Every day Slashdot seems to carry another story making the GNU right to read look ever more prescient.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
i wouldnt buy it... id just get it off eDonkey like i do with all my books =p
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
isn't that just your uncle's third cousin? the brother of one's cousin is still one's cousin...
Too bad guns can't be mistaken for software.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This is the legislature that wants to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. One of them wanted to design government buildings according to the "rules" of fung shui. They wanted to raise gas taxes while driving state funded SUVs and luxury cars and exempting themselves from the tax. They had laws that allowed shady law firms to openly blackmail small businesses and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into fixing iy by local media activists.
I could go on for 50 pages. People call Bush dumb. Cripes, Bush is Descartes and Pascal combined compared to the dumbass piles of brainless drooling shit that sit in our statehouse. And we can't get rid of them because of the gerrymandered districts. Even if they get tossed out via term limits, the ideologically based districting just projectile vomits up another extremist.
I'm amazed the law didn't call for $2,000,000 in fines and life in prison without parole.
--- Ban humanity.
They could start voting for people who are actually interested in representing the, well, people.
A nice idea, but the reality is, such candidates never get funding form businesses, and as a result, never have the cash to win an election. Most of the time, the candidate with the most money ends up with the most votes.
Show me such a person running for office, and I'll vote for them. If such a person actually wins a state or federal election, I'll sing "God Bless America" buck naked on the Boston Common in January, preferably during a winter storm.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
If we put all programmers in jail, they'll be able to spend ALL of their time programming, instead of wasting their energy worrying about how to pay their bills. They already live in their parents basements, which are aesthetically similar enough that they probably won't even notice.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
These are all great discussions, but I think you're missing the grand scheme of things. This is really a "hush hush" operation by Microsoft to set the stage for their DRM technology. Their DRM, once mature, will be presented as a reasonable effort to control rampant piracy. It will be the magic pill for all of the media business's ills. Stand behind DRM with Microsoft and no one will pirate your properties again! It's the perfect plan to get more big money backing for MS.
Every restaurant, place of business, public park, street, and highway should have individual capsulized bullet-proof compartments for each potential person that could enter those venues, to prevent any illegal discussions or activities that may happen.
Also, those compartments should prevent RF and any other medium that can transmit potentially illegal analog or digital data.
Every compartment should have a speaker grill with a microphone that can transmit the occupants' wishes to the dictator watching all 6 billion of us so he can personally approve or disapprove every transaction that person wishes to make with every other person on the planet.
Only THEN shall this world be piracy free!!
Futher proof that BOTH parties are in bed with big business. It's just that the democrats prefer the RIAA/MPAA while the Republicans prefer wall street.
For this bill in particular, does anyone really believe this is the will of the people? Were something like this up for a referendum it would lose 90% to 10%.
It's time for some new political parties that actually care about what people want out of government, and neither party fits that description.
Seriously though, saying California is the same as the whole US is like saying France is the same as the rest of Europe.
telnet your_ip:your_port > my_file_on_my_computer.exe
Bills like this are just more proof that the technologically adept (ie geeks and nerds) are a despised class that arguably need protection from excesses of the law and bigotry. Politicians feel perfectly at ease trampling on our rights while pocketing money from RIAA and others whose only interest is in profit, because people don't like geeks and nerds. Now don't get me wrong, profit is good, but not at the expense of people's rights. If things play out at their worse, we'll soon have prisons full of murders, rapists, and programmers. Hmmm, with all of those programmers in prison, I suppose we'll finally have coding that can compete with the cost savings of outsourcing to India.
Seriously, unless technologists band together, we'll continue to see attacks on not only our livelihood, but our passion! Geeks of the the world must unite! We can't let the bullies keep taking our lunch money.
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
http://www.gnutella.com/news/5267
August 14, 2002
California Senator Kevin Murray is continuing his push to repeal the 'Seven-Year Rule', which allows record companies to lock artists into unfair limitless contracts for their artistic works.
Currently, the music industry is the only industry legally allowed to hold their personal-services contracts beyond the maximum length of seven years (as per California state law). The law limiting the length of personal-services contracts in California was created to ensure that people could not be turned into "indentured servants" by having a limitless unfair contract term put upon them which they are unable to escape from.
The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) issued a public statement last week outlining the five concessions they are willing to make to satisfy the concerns of artists' groups (such as the Recording Artist Coalition or RAC) which are currently negotiating the matter with the RIAA. In response to this "outline of concessions", Senator Murray has publicly stated his concern with what the RIAA calls "compromises" are in fact tailored to represent demands of the labels and not that of the artists.
"For the RIAA to present their demands as compromises or concessions was an insult to the recording artists, attorneys, and managers that have been working for months to resolve this issue." - Senator Kevin Murray
america is more and more fascist!
Oh I forgot, killing people isn't really a crime in America, but refusing to be sodomized by the RIAA/MPAA is.
...have anti counterfeiting provisions for paper money now. That's done with the combo of built in features in their firmware, and what's in the bills themselves. So theortically at least this would be possible to extend to other printed material. So who knows, it might come to that, various deadtree copies might have standardized watermarks at some time that flag a copy/can't copy thing in the copiers. If it can be done to "protect IP" my guess is eventually "it" -it being any sort of tech along these lines- will be done and most likely legislated into existence and acceptance, especially inside the US, because increasingly we are becoming mostly a paperwork and electron shuffling economy.
is it because guns hurt puny, worthless individuals and P2P hurts large, rich corporations that the congress-critters care?
Maybe guns should start hurting large, rich corporations.
Freedom: "I won't!"
won't be long now .....
"All crime is committed by the living, therefore life itself is a crime."
Sidney De'Ath
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
If the idiots in the content industries would stop fighting the file-swapping beast and learn to love it, their so-called problems would all go away overnight. If any such idiots are reading this, post e-mail in reply and we can negotiate for my brilliant solution to this problem.
Six score characters.
Brevity being wit's soul
I have enough space.
Excellent thread. Here's a link to the Senator e-mail list.
Senator E-mail List
I'll need a lawyer pretty soon.
-=-=-=-=
I know life isn't fair, but why can't it ever be un-fair in MY favor!?
Developers arent attorneys. They shouldnt be required to know what is illegal and they have no responsibility to code their software according to the wishes of anyone else, except if they are paid to do that.
Does this imply that reasonable steps should be taken by gun manufactures to prevents guns from being used for crimes?
Apples and oranges. The intended use for a gun is sport, and possibly self defense. The intended use of P2P programs is piracy.
Oh I'm sorry that's unconstitutional...
You're damn right it is, and no where in the constitution does it say "You have a right to bear software".
Maybe that should be written in, seriously. Instead of trying to use this to push a liberal agenda (this bill was proposed by a democrat btw) why not argue against the bill on it's merits or lack thereof (ie, it's dumb to make software illegal).
Just check the "copyrighted" flag on MP3 files ... duh!
Republic of California is doing this? I thought Bush was a corporate tool? I guess they all are it is just that the corporations are different. Of course browers, FTP, email all could fall under this category and it is a stupid bill. Look to the NRA with their guns don't kill people, people do for a way out of this. Software doesn't infring on copyrights people do...
Onward to the Aether Sphere!
What - are you unable to speak aloud the name of your Sex Crime? Report to the Ministry of Love immediately!
Teh USB Electric Chair!
Automatically detects computer-enabled software/music/movie piracy and Peer-to-Peer network connections, and fries the culprit!
*With 500$ mail-in rebate from the SIIA/RIAA/MPAA
**20$ media gift certificate per electrocution!
There are 2 kinds of people in this world. Those that can keep their train of thought,
I'm really upset that all the hammers in my toolbox could be used to blugeon someone to death. By failing to install technology that can prevent the misuse of hammers, these hammer manufacturers have not done their due diligence. There are no safety interlocks and no owner recognition systems on hammers. This clearly shows no reasonable effort has been made to prevent the malicious use of this tool!
I'm also upset that illegal drugs are transported into this country on cars, trucks, and boats. The manufacturers of these products have NOT taken any steps in the design of their products to prevent the transportation of contraband. Clearly car, truck, and boat manufacturers must be taken to task for this irresponsible behavior!
Seriously, personal responsibility in this country is gone. Anything you do can be blamed on someone else. The legal system is OUT OF CONTROL in the US. I don't blame the attorneys. I blame the legislators and judges who lack the common sense to kill these stupid laws.
-ted
Can we then hold Public officials accountable for crime on our streets? I mean they should take reasonable measures to prevent crime, and aparently they are not since we still have crime.
You can NOT hold someone responsible for somethign someone else does unless you are some part of it. Hell while were at it lets hold MCI and all the rest of the backbones responsible to for not taking reasonable measure to stop illegal activities over their networks. Let's hold the phone companies responsible for all the communications over telephones that leads up to drug deals.
If the people of California allow this to happen, lets blow the fault line and sink the damn state into the ocean.
When I'm governor I'm going to sue the Bic pen company for making pens that could be used to pick bicycle locks, or to forge checks. Then I will require that the company take 'reasonable care' to prevent their their pens from being used for forging checks or picking bicycle locks.
Well, then they better start copying the manufacturers of cassette tapes, tape recorders, cd burners and the like.
It's going to get worse before it gets batter though. Instead of the war on drugs that fills our prisons to capacity and lets out violent criminals early, it'll be filled with software engineers.
For all the stupid "just ban web browsers, then" comments, read the fscking bill. Also note that it's not just developers, but also people who disseminate P2P software:
:) Or better yet, the RIAA and MPAA should provide the data. If they want us to not trade their shit, then they should be required to provide a method for us to play nice.
(a) Any person or entity that sells, offers for sale, advertises, distributes, disseminates, provides, or otherwise makes available peer-to-peer file sharing software that enables its user to electronically disseminate commercial recordings or audiovisual [ blah blah blah ] and who fails to exercise reasonable care in preventing use of that software to commit an unlawful act [ blah blah blah] As used in this section, "peer-to-peer file sharing software" means software that once installed and launched, enables the user to connect his or her computer to a network of other computers on which the users of these computers have made available recording or audiovisual works for electronic dissemination to other users who are connected to the network. When a transaction is complete, the user has an identical copy of the file on his or her computer and may also then disseminate the file to other users connected to the network.
Web browsers don't fit this definition, unless someone's got a webbrowser that automatically makes its cache available to the world over HTTP, while also immediatly updating google. It's pretty clearly P2P software, as we all understand it to mean.
The big problem I have with this is that there's no easy way for someone writing, say, a 15-line python P2P system, to take that "reasonable care" to restrict copyrighted traffic. And really, it's not just restricting copyrighted material, but restricting copyrighted material where the owner has not said you can share (Dave Matthews concerts are copyrighted, but legal to trade, for example). So software can't simply check for a "copyright" flag in the data stream.
A really quick and dirty approach might be to have a central server with filenames and MD5s of copyrighted material. The app checks a file against that via a simple network call, and if it comes back, it disallows the transfer. (note that this would probably be easy for the user to defeat). It might even be possible to coerce the State of California into creating and maintaining that server.
That might be a good comment to make to the legislators (if anyone actually thinks this will go anywhere). Describe the futility of the bill, the impossibility of checking an individual file, and how the only even remotely feasible technical mechanism is a central file/hash listing maintained by the content creators.
(not that I even agree the software authors or distributors should be shouldered with the blame of their users' actions...)
File sharing and p2p software is still a very new development and ill-understood even by those who use such programs on a regular basis. Legislating technological restrictions is a knee-jerk reaction by law makings who have lobbyists beating down their doors because the latest greatest p2p software might someday cost them their monopoly on digital/analog content distribution.
As a frequent users of P2P technologies, I often download music but infrequently download Movies. Why? Because $10 is a reasonable price to pay for legally owning a movie, especially when there are "extras" or "special features" not readily available through the p2p channels. The RIAA has its head up its ass thinking its ok to charge, and get $20 for a new mass produced pop CD with a single respectable song on it. The ROI just isnt there so I can either tape the song off the radio or download over a p2p network.
Lawmakers really need to wait on passing legilation until there is some demonstrable harm to the economy resulting from file sharing.
What ever happened to the "less government" mantra. I miss the REAL Republicans...
why not let your state senator know how you feel about this? If they don't know how absurd these laws are, why don't we take it upon ourselves to tell them?
Just a thought.
Then any computer I have touched needs to be looked at.
e nce.html
p ectcoalition.org/
Four more years of Terror! Yah.
Wait, no, I mean peace.
Is than not right Paul Kocher.
You should have kept riding your bike, seriously, it is good for you, if done correctly.
http://www.wallbike.com/content/impot
http://www.newscientist.com
What did Japan, Sony, and Micro$oft deside on?
Don't forget Korea (bp) and China.
What will you do, when people dump the video from the blue lazer DVDs out to VHS? Now that is what I call backwards compatible.
There will always be DivX for those of us that can not afford to get into the studios.
The sky will really fall when some one violates the ELUA for MacroMedia.
http://www.macromedia.com/
Take care of yourself, then others.
Side note to MOJO, Nirvana was not America's last great band.
http://www.mojo4music.com/
Rilos Kiley kicks some serious ars. I was rocking out to Music like "The Execution of all Things", and Daft Punks "Harder Better Faster Stronger" up to the elections, now I am enjoying music with words like respect, or Pink Floyds the Wall, or the Who's I can see for Miles.
http://www.rilokiley.com/
http://www.res
Remember, you can not take it with you when you cross over, and tie the not.
Peace.
I guess that it's probably not a good idea to apply for that new LimeWire software developer opening, then.
Titus Barik
The files would have to be in some sort of "illegal files database" along with their hashes. The software would then alert the user when he can't download an "illegal file".
Of course, crackers would release PATCHES to circumvent said "anti-warez" security. Not to mention ALTERED versions of the copyrighted works i.e. audio: "This file was cracked by pyr8 rulz! Powah to da peepl! (song begins here)"
This mean there could be countless hashes for a single copyrighted work. Hey what if a file i'm sharing accidentally has THE SAME HASH? Collisions HAVE been found in MD5.
(But also, can there be a way to prevent the OWNER of the files from downloading them? Then there would have to be a database of owners, along with private and public keys. Oh, what happens if somehow the key is lost? More bureaucracy.
So, in order to successfully prevent a copyrighted work from being shared, we need to:
a) Connect to a massive database, spending a HUGE AMOUNT of bandwidth in comparing the hash of the file you're downloading with the database.
b) Implement a very secure (possibly redundant) hash algorithm so that no duplicates are found.
c) And with the increasing number of copyrighted works, the database would soon take control of all works. Obviously this needs to be an INTERNATIONAL effort, and some countries won't participate.
d) And then there would have to be a standarized, even possibly patented LIBRARY for the security of copyrighted works.
e) If the database can't be connected, that could possibly be a loophole, but since we have to respect the law, the transfer would not begin in the first place. This would effectively turn the hash database into an "internet access key", which is just ridiculout. Otherwise, one could just use a firewall to prevent connections to the database. Ta-da! Instant sharing. So much for nothing.
f) In the end, the whole internet could become unusable.
Frankly I don't see how such a hairball of protections is going to a) be practically implementable, and b) have any positive consequences for the industry or the "affected" parties.
That bill should have to be ruled as inconstitutional. (Free speech, anyone?) And if this trend continues, even calling a buddy by phone would be illegal. Now do they want the chat programs to insert spyware as to detect possible copyright infringements? What's next, ruling encryption illegal (oh, wait...) ?
Excuse me my congressmen, but this whole idea of using law to prevent technology from accessing something which CAN'T BE MEASURED technologically, is just ridiculous. It would be like using science to prove the existence of God.
Copyright infringers have to be caught ON THE ACT for the law to be respected.
End of discussion, case dismissed.
NEXT!
You ASKED for this!!!
Idiots Are Taking Over applies here in England too. The worst thing is that our government just bends over and takes it up the arse from anyone who offers it. I'm so sick of us being the world's bitch. I'm actually ashamed to be English.
What with Trusted Computing, the whole P2P scandal, CCTV and speed cameras I fear for my future children. We're heading towards a Big Brother future that I don't want to be a part of, and I certainly wouldn't want to bring children into it.
I'm living in a country where the criminals have more rights than the victims, and where the only people actually getting taken to court are the ones defending themselves from burglars and muggers. Well, unless they're being sued into oblivion by anyone who can get away with it.
If the government spent more time worrying about the things that really matter (like Education, Health, Transport) then we wouldn't be in this shit state. But then again, it's far easier to pass bullshit laws and worry about shit that doesn't matter.
If ignorance is bliss, knock the smile off my face.
I suppose the weapons manufacturers are forced to make sure people don't use their weapons to commit crimes.
This country is starting to blow.
It started to blow when they anihilated the indians! Your deduction is about 200 years late, pal.
I'm not surprised that California would propose such a preposterous idea such as this. It honestly makes you wonder how much weight the MPAA & RIAA throw around in state politics and at this point, I'd say quite a bit.
The result of a bill like this passing does not help anyone, but only lends more control over to the mega-giants of media. I for one don't welcome or mega-giant media overlords, and quite honestly, they can go screw themselves!
http://www.allometry.com
It might make open source software illegal, because any code that attempts to prevent transfer of copyrighted material could simply be altered or removed.
Just fine everyone to prop up the governmental piggy bank, then declare every citizen a criminal so we can get this pesky 'rights' issue out of the way once and for all.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A theif used the expressway to steal a car. So the makers of that expressway (the state govt I suppose) must be fined/jailed! Love it! Let aim of Texas first!
Are you thinking what I'm thinking? Just tweak the software to change a couple of bytes in the header during transfer. :-) It's not an identical copy, your honor! You could even use their ignorance of technology to your advantage - bring in the MD5 digests of the two files in court: "Just look at the huge differences between these two unique file identifiers. Coincidence? I think not!" ;-)
Soon you'll find kids at school sharing their illegal freenet access CD's. Any imposition against the people will eventually fail. I place my bets that the copyright tyrans will find their names placed on the black book of historic villains. Oh yes, I can see it... in 50 years kids will laugh at the stupid congressmen who passed the bills.
And, yes, the documentary will be freely available for download.
What about banning guns, as they are used to commit crimes too!! Ban cars, as they are used by criminals, and the internet as it is being used by criminals. Ban food, as its used to make crininal big and strong!!! P2P is just a popular target at the moment, as its seen as being a popularity vote winner. You can just ban something for being used by criminal elements... all things in some form are used by crininals for illegal activities. Hypocrats!
I just noticed http://lessig.org/blog/ is down. Perhaps 1000s of people are collectively looking to the defacto leader of the free culture movement for some insight on this issue. Let's also hope all of our gaurdian agencies (eff, downhill battle, et al) get their stuff together quickly.
But on a practical level, I wonder if this really matters. I for one am already afeared of writing p2p software, just because it seems like I would be opening myself up for lots of trouble. It's a special breed of person that writes p2p software, really has to believe in the stuff, and be willing to risk it all. Laws don't make much difference to them folk.
Discuss, discuss
--- CatsCradle
too bad they don't give mod points to AC's ... :-(
Do you value the freedom to create and use free software above the desire by teenagers to download music, movies, and software they haven't paid for?
I certainly do. The industry reaction by the RIAA and MPAA is absolutely to be expected, and if there is no concerted effort by the development community to respect the rights of these industries then these industries will not respect the rights of our industry.
There is no use in screaming into your monitor that these organisations will never respect digital rights for humans over digital rights for corporations, or that the technological reality is developers cannot do anything to contain this explosion of digital freedom.
This is not true. By attempting to 'engage the enemy' by showing some concern for copyright within our community we do increase the voice we have in the outside world, and the outside world is where they draw the legislation up that *most certainly* can and will modify the reality of the inside world. There are things we, as developers, can do in our projects and activities that demonstrate a concern - even if it is just cosmetic - to placate the technically illiterate who when not placated craft these ridiculous pieces of legislation.
We as a community are failing miserably at this PR job, adopting an us vs them mentality that is bound to fail. We continually paint ourselves as online anarchists who seem to believe we are invincible. We are not.
People here also confuse the freedom to create with the reckless freedom to consume others copyrighted content. We should be defending the first by attempting to defend the second - not by posting lame, smug comments about getting the torrent file.
I guess it comes down to this: if we don't regulate ourselves then others will - and a lot more severely. That is what is happening now. If people writing p2p apps put in simple measures to stop average joe consumer from downloading copyrighted content the RIAA and MPAA would not be getting in anywhere near the fit they are in now, and the tech-literate could still do what they wanted.
So a big fcuk you to all those who have created software for the masses to awake the sleeping industry giants that are now pissing on *all* of our freedoms before we even had a chance to get together a smarter game plan.
...is your uncle's third cousin. Don't make things too complicated, dude!
--Use ant to make
What Arnold has to do, is give free tickets to California to p2p developers to arrest them once they are in California soil :)
Hey can anyone make a P2P reality tv show like sims?
Back then I thought in a similar fashion. Perrot would have done wonders for our country's financial situation.. ..
... instead the american people are all jibber jabberin away..."
but as I grew a little older I had a large realization: He would be HELL to live with. Think about the loss of personal freedoms you endure at a corporate job: Computer Lockdowns, no music, reserved personal expression, having your activity monitored
Sure, he would have done wonders for our economy and national debt., etc... but I wonder how bad (and I believe it would be very bad) it would be to live under his thumb.
Perrot: "Now ya see, the problem is... to much personal freedom! We should be fixing out debts and workin hard
---- How absolute the knave is! We must speak by the card, or equivocation will undo us. -Shakespeare
An Indian friend of mine just got back from visiting his homeland. Talk about pirating, he was telling me how easy it is to get Playstation games for as little as $2. They even go so far as to print the manual and make boxes in exact replica. Another friend of mine bought bootleg CDs made in the same fashion from our friendly neighbors in Mexico. These aren't seedy backalley merchants, this stuff is right out in the streets.
When's the last time you heard a story about the RIAA making a raid on some illegal factory overseas cranking out thousands, if not millions of dollars worth of pirated hardcopies. Is P2P such a threat that these black market industries can veritably be ignored, or are we just not hearing about it in the news?
c:\My music>xcopy /s \\yourmachine\c$\mp3-collection .
The system cannot copy the files specified.
Quotting "if they don't take 'reasonable care' to prevent their software from being used to commit crime."
Legal loophole?!
Guns don't kill people,
people kill people.
Programs don't steal files,
People steal files.
What bad things? He's still alive. The worst direct result of his book was a price on his head and commercial airlines being unwilling to fly him anywhere.
On a side note, I didn't understand any of the references to Islam when I read the book and I loved it.
Let's lock up men for having the capability to be gigolos.
Let's lock up women for having the capability to be prostitutes.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
fuh!
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
Why is all this focus on P2P software?
... ...
... ... ...
It's crazy !?
What about FTP
IRC
Copy?
That's it
We'll hold the people who make the OS
Responsible
When it comes to enforcing the law.
Of course the software is going to have to be somewhat self aware.
At least know where on the planet it is located.
And have a firm understanding of how the law applies in the given context of the current file "copy".
Pfft,
-- The Dude
senator.murray@sen.ca.gov
It is lawyers who create these problems, who write these bad laws, that set up the cock fight between two groups so that they can get rich on the litigious.
Screw Law School
VCRs? Yes, some people have one still
DVD recorders
CD burners
TIVO?
Photocopiers?
Right-click -> copy -> paste
hack a day
...that the tool is not the problem. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. P2P apps don't trade content illegally, people trade content illegally.
I think the next top priority of the US goverment should be to pass laws to stop the evil manufacturers of baseball bats and forks next. How can we let such dangerous items to be so carelessly created lacking safegaurds when they can be used to maim someone?! The lack of a law to track down these terrorists is clearly a gross oversight and I am embarrassed to be an American.
- Have you ever noticed that the more you learn about technology, the more stupid you sound trying to explain it?
How are you using the term "pork barrel," there?
There are tons of examples of one side or another attaching amendments to bills in order to undercut their support. For example, the 1964 Civil Rights Bill eventually included provisions about gender as well as race; the usual social conservatives thought that would take the bill down because the idea was so obnoxious. (Oops! The bill passed.)
So was the proposed legislation loaded with actual "pork" -- meaning costly projects for people's home districts? It doesn't even read, in your version, like a deliberate attempt to undercut it. It sounds more like the bill was an overrreach -- "more anti-gun legislature" (legislation, right?) was on it, and it got voted down.
It's called a representative democracy. Messy process, isn't it?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
But the law is classified and we can't read it.
And the door manufacturer should have taken resonable care to make sure that I couldn't get the DVD out of the door at the store, so sue them too.
Is that really what we, the people, want? Aren't our representatives supposed to represent us and our opinions? I thought we'd live in a democratic country. What happened?
Good! Nevada is right next door, and we are growing and diversifying fast. And we are a very pro-freedom state.
:)
A Silicon Valley here in the desert would suit me just fine.
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
those two programs have lead to so much warez it is not even funny, or is it?
Rider: A provision added to a bill so it may "ride" to approval on the strength of the bill. Generally, riders are placed on appropriations bills. Also known as "pork barrel" legislation.
Because the Democrats still want gun manufacturers to be held liable for gun deaths, they attached some provisions which further restricted which guns you could own, which of course the NRA wasn't about to support. To answer your question about deliberate undercutting, however, that's exactly what the purpose was for the Democrats because they knew that rider would make the bill fail.
As for the comment on representative democracy, I don't think shooting down bills that would otherwise pass by riding irrelevant legislation designed to defeat them is really a good example of representative democracy.
I think that this is a fine example of a congressman with limited understanding of what it means to be a P2P app. trying to tell those who do understand that he is correct, and will stand fast against P2P software. However, having a better understanding of the issue, P2P proponents can see the forest for the trees, rather than just seeing a way to feign moral standards in politics, or to appease the media regulation authorities to keep corporate media business interest happy. I think that this is worse than ignoring the problem of P2P piracy, because it is a shoddy solution that negelcts the true problem at hand. Instead, it places a tremendous amount of stress on developers to meet vague standards on what is and isn't preventing illegal use of their software (because inevitably, these standards will be stupid initially, and need to be refined via arguments in court etc.) so no one is going to want to develop P2P apps (I'm talking in terms of the version of "P2P" in question here, not the technicality of it all that classifies web browsers et al as P2P) for useful reasons like legitimate and infinitely extensible robust file transfers (see: bittorrent). This is an awesome technology, and just because some people are abusing it, the solution is *not* to just ban/prohibitivly restrict all users of the software. These are my bits, and I'll send them where ever I feel like, and in fact, as long as people are offering up theirs, I'll take whatever bits I please, too.
sigSEGV - doy!
guns.
Lets shut down any company found making weapons that have been used to illegal kill somebody, and put the entire staff in jail.
I mean, if they didn't take reasonable care to ensure that the weapons could only be used to kill legally.
Obviously.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/01/12/233227 &from=rss
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
I think we should require every gun manufacturer, every weapons developer to come up with reasonable measures so their weapons don't end up in the hands criminals intent on committing crimes.
Hell, we should post-humously charge Albert Einstein, Enrica Fermi with fines and jail time for not taking better care that the world doesn't destroy itself through nuclear weapons.
What a dumb a$$ bill!!!
While we're at it, let's pass laws that persecute the owners and developers that work at automotive and gun companies when somebody commits a crime while using their product. After all, you can tie the CEO of GMC directly to a hit-and-run murder case since they provided the means of the crime.
This is plain stupid. The only thing stupider than this bill is the moron that suggested it.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
This is a stupid law, written by stupid people, bought and paid for by the MPAA/RIAA. This is unenforceable as the same rules would apply to automobiles, hammers, screwdrivers, bolt cutters, crowbars, ski masks, guns, knives, and thousands of other daily items. In reality a pencil can be used to kill someone, which is a crime. Therefore, pencil manufacturers must comply with this law. America has decayed over the last few decades into a police state of the conglomerates. This highlights how corrupt our political system has become. It is no longer of the people, by the people, and for the people. Today it's of the lawyers, by the lawmakers, for the special interests. I mourn the death of our freedom for which the founding fathers dedicated their lives.
Usually, it's unsuccessful and some states even have laws indemnifing gun manufacturers against suits of this kind. However it has been successful on at least one case I am aware of. Bryco arms was successfully sued in to non-existance because of a shooting incident involving one of their guns.
Brandon Maxfield was shot in the chin by a Bryco gun, paralizing him. This happened while the person babysitting him was attempting to unload the gun. One is left to wonder, of course, who unloads a gun while pointing it at a child. However Bryco was found partially liable because of the design of the gun. It featured a manual safety, but the way the safety worked was a slide lock (the to part of a semi-auto pistol that cycles back when it fires). Thus to unload the gun, you have to disengage the manual safety. This design was found to be negligent.
Perhaps you might be inclined to agree until you realise two things:
1) This is the same design used by the Colt 1911, the standard military sidewarm for deciades.
2) A number of guns, like the vastly popular Glock series and many revolvers, lack any kind of manual safety. They are alwys ready to fire when a round is in the chamber.
So essentialy you had an idiot that used a gun in a highly inappropriate way, however the manufacturer was found paritally at fault for not putting in good enough idiot defense.
This is the only successful one I can think of, but don't think it doesn't get tried all the time. People were absolutly up in arms when Glocks came out since they lack a manual safety. The Glock philsophy is a gun that will not go off, unless the trigger is pulled, but will always go off if the trigger is pulled. There was huge hue and cry about the danger. It gets reserructed every once and a while, when someone manages to shoot themselves or someone else with a Glock through improper handling.
In 1995 a cop Randall Smith accidentally shot another officer with a Glock. He had his finger on the trigger while handling it. He however sued Glock claiming their design was defective since it lacked a manual safey. Rather than go to court, Glock settled.
So ya, actually, at least as far as the gun industry is concerned, this is nothign new. People try all the time to hold them accountable for the actions of those that purchase their products. Sometimes, they are successful at doing so.
I have a better idea, why don't you write to the government and tell them your thoughts about this whole bill. Also, Machine9 made a point about applying the following laws into the bill.
This is an interesting post, mod it up slackers! :)
Joseph?
I don't suppose _anyone_ advised them that this is impossible. I mean, really, truly, impossible. Given an arbitrary stream of bits, there is no way to tell if it is copyrighted material. Even combined with a known format for the stream (one that supports rights management even!), I can just fool the program into using another representation. No presently availible DRM technology is impossible to break. So, what if I break the file, reencode it to give me distribution rights? Does J. Random Coder get sued?
====
Crudely Drawn Games
This would be a Funny, not an Offtopic...
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
What about sharing music from new artists who want to get their band noticed and specifically _allow_ this kind of sharing?
Why doesn't the government pass a law to incriminate "weapon developers", including under weapons: guns, knives, nail clippers, matches, lighters, pens, pencils, wires, shoe laces and the list goes on, after all, all them can be used to comit crimes. How are those developers any different from software developers ?? Oh, but no law for weapon control would keep the government busy trying to keep us safe from the unsafety that it allows?? Wow, we've got some really smart people at the top, and with that in mind we all can imagine where we're heading.
This bill is sponsored/written by the same guy that brought us SB1506 which has been approved by California Senate & Assembly and Governor Arnold and became law 19 days ago.
To the non-technical (who don't understand that the entire internet is p2p and ftp is just as guilty as Morpheus), that bill was more bizzare than SB 96, so expect it to pass unless strongly opposed.
It took SB1506 from Feb 9 to Sept 21 2004 to work its way through the CA Legislature.
Bills need three readings & one month after the first before they can move too far. Feb 17th is the earliest that this one can be heard in committee.
SB 1506 went to the Sen. committees on Judiciary and Public Safety first. SB 96 is currently in Rules, but all bills go there for re-assignment.
I'll write to my reps Simitian and Laird today. They stream RealAudio of the hearings.
This one got caught early. Let's work to kill it NOW.
Gun makers are not required to ensure that their works are used for criminal ends with their billions of dollars of net revenue and a couple of programmers who's work will never gain them over a million net must take "reasonable" (see drastic yet downplayed) measures to ensure that THEIR works aren't used for criminal purposes.
I'd say the world's gone mad but that would infer that it wasn't so before.
The makers of computers and all the parts therein. Which means jail time for the CEO of Intel, AMD, etc if their chips are used to make computers that illegally download copyrighted software. Also let's not exclude the CEO of Bellsouth, Comcast, etc for providing the internet access that was used. Oh and finally Bill Gates for providing the OS.
SECTION 1. Section 653.15 is added to the Penal Code , to read:
653.15. (a) Any person or entity that sells, offers for sale,
advertises, distributes, disseminates, provides, or otherwise makes
available peer-to-peer file sharing software that enables its user to
electronically disseminate commercial recordings or audiovisual
works via the Internet or any other digital network, and who fails to
exercise reasonable care in preventing use of that software to
commit an unlawful act with respect to a commercial recording or
audiovisual work, or a violation of Section 311.1, subdivisions (b),
(c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11,
or 502 is punishable, in addition to any other penalty or fine
imposed, by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed
one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.(b) As used in this
section, "peer-to-peer file sharing software" means software that
once installed and launched, enables the user to connect his or her
computer to a network of other computers on which the users of these
computers have made available recording or audiovisual works for
electronic dissemination to other users who are connected to the
network. When a transaction is complete, the user has an identical
copy of the file on his or her computer and may also then disseminate
the file to other users connected to the network.
So, by this definition any OS is liable and affected by this bill. Afterall Windows, Linux, OSX, etc. all allow you to connect to a network (the internet) once installed and launched.
This bill is way too broad in scope. It's just opening up the possibility of anyone being held responsible if their software has the ability to connect to any network.
Think of all the other things this opens up. If you run someone over with your car, Chevrolet is liable? You shoot someone, the gun manufacturers are liable? This is obviously a bill brought up by the media interests without looking at the real outcome.
How do you make an overly broad defintion of P2P software? The definition is in the name. Peer to Peer. Client to Server (as in the browser exmaple giving by the author) is not peer to peer.
Burn the coders at the stake! Damn coders making life easiler of the user AT NO COST! How dare they! ARRRGGGGH!!!
Hear hear! Down with the Seventeenth Amendment!
One solution would be to have a disclaimer saying, "Do not use this product for illegal purposes. We are not liable for your actions."
Yes.
For one thing, the United States has about 10 times the population of Canada: roughly 290 million vs 30 million, so the U.S. is going to have more of everything in terms of absolute numbers. I don't have the crime rates handy right now.
But there are important demographical differences.
About 12% of the U.S. population is black, but 25% of violent crimes are committed by blacks (for whatever reason. I am not suggesting any causes, just stating a fact.) Only 2% of Canada's population is black.
This is about 3 times the amount of violent crime committed by a person with a gun (7%), even though gun owners are 15% to 30% of the U.S. population (depending on whose figures you accept).
Even a famous 1988 study, which compared higher homicide rates in Seattle to lower homicide rates in Vancouver -- and blamed the difference on lax U.S. gun laws -- showed that the homicide rate for whites was lower in the U.S. city than the Canadian city. That fact was swept under the rug.
U.S. crime figures fromm U.S. Department of Justice. National Crime Victimization Survey.
Criminal Victimization in the United States. (1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 Statistical Tables).
Table 40: "Percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offender"
Table 46: "Percent distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime and perceived race of offenders"
Table 66: "Percent of incidents, by victim-offender relationship, type of crime and weapons use"
Available on the internet at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/cvusst.htm
See actual data at the end of this post.
Unlike the FBI Uniform Crime Report, which is based on arrests, the NCVS is based on surveys of crime victims, so it's harder to claim that they're racially biased (especially since blacks are also dispraportionately victims of crime.
1996
Table 40: 6,930,880 single-offender violent crimes. 26.2% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 2,010,170 muliple-offender violent crimes. 30.4% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 8,316,180 crimes of violence. 10.2% committed by an offender with a gun
1997
Table 40: 6,737,250 single-offender violent crimes. 25.3% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,757,460 multiple-offender violent crimes. 29.1% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 7,911,520 crimes of violence. 8.6% committed by an offender with a gun
1998
Table 40: 6,352,230 single-offender violent crimes. 22.5% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,660,000 multiple-offender violent crimes. 25.9% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 7,433,670 crimes of violence. 7.5% committed by an offender with a gun
1999
Table 40: 5,788,490 single-offender violent crimes. 24.1% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,465,510 multiple-offender violent crimes. 27.1% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 6,723,930 crimes of violence. 6.8% committed by an offender with a gun
2000
Table 40: 4,948,330 single-offender violent crimes. 24.1% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,258,010 multiple-offender violent crimes. 27.2% committed by all-black offenders
Table 66: 5,815,540 crimes of violence. 7.4% committed by an offender with a gun
2001
Table 40: 4,463,690 single-offender violent crimes. 24.6% committed by black offenders
Table 46: 1,176,880 multiple-offender violent c
Unless you voted!
My sigs offend the max # of people all over the world, regardless of race, religion, color, sex or creed. It's a gift.
Amen to that. If you vote "against incumbents" by going Rep when it's a Dem or Dem when it's a Rep, you're fooling yourself that you're making any difference at all. Not a dime's worth of difference, as it has been said. The only way we'll see a change is when people start voting third party in large numbers. If we were to get a few in, maybe electoral reform would be raised as a serious issue in our statehouses. If you're staying home on election day as a protest, the Duopoly candidates thank you. Get out and vote for any third party on the ballot. And if you're actually voting for the same old same old and expecting things to change, you're nuts. Neither the Dems or Reps are interested in changing the system significantly - they more-or-less maintain the status quo because it's the status quo system that got them into office. Shake things up! Vote third party!
Constitutionally Correct
Now that you know profits are their obsessions (kind of late, but...) what are you going to do about it? A lot of people whined how it has come to this and to that, but I haven't seen any solutions. Whinning is a good stress relief, but it doesn't do anything to solve problems. I highly suspect these whiners will continue to go to the theaters, buy DRM CDs and DVDs, and keep giving money to the entertainment cartels (including buying DRM games, and justify DRM's usefulness.) Moreover, some whiners will advocate anonymous P2P programs to share these contents.
Why is boycotting difficult? Instead of wasting money lobbying the government on your behalf, prevent the entertainment cartels from using your money to lobby the government on their behalf. You save money and make a difference, and it's the most effective way there is.
Don't expect anyone else to change, if you won't change.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I didn't feel like skimming through 564 comments to see if this was mentioned already;
This also means that tool manufacturers are to be held liable for me cracking someone's head with a claw hammer or robbing a store with a knife. These are things that were created for good reasons but used for bad reasons too. It's human nature, you can't stop it all.
IANALOOA
Once again we've reached that point in all
P2P is alive and well. Its a ridiculously simple concept which requires as little as 15 lines of code. P2P apps are being developed everywhere from Oslo, to Hong Kong, to New Delhi, to Tel Aviv, etc.
As with DeCSS, or even virii P2P applications require 1 author and poof! they're out there. So the questions are:
Will any legislation put the P2P genie back in the bottle? Of course not.
Will any legislation 'significantly' slow P2P development? OF COURSE NOT. (America isn't where most P2P apps are written anyway).
So let Governor Arnold enact his little uneducated, fantasy tirade against a force which is uncontrollable and is far stronger than he (or any government) is.
It just won't matter.
P2P is here to stay.
And what's next? "P2P Streaming" is around the corner (and will have a far, far greater impact than file-sharing did).
Who gets affected by this? US p2p developers.
Ok, if you're one of them... you have a legitimate gripe here.
Otherwise, this legislation (if enacted) will have zero affect on the existence or use of P2P apps.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
I suppose you could store the segments of the audio in a linked list and then write the segments non-sequentially to the disk. This would basically be the same as a heavily fragmented MP3.
I kinda like this idea. The next step after your suggestion would be to have the player re-arrange the file and resave it (even if it only swaps two random segments locations within the file) every time the file is played. That way the exact same song will never have the same file structure. Funny! I like it!
This is certainly NOT P2P.... ;->
...richie - It is a good day to code.
Lets break it down Jailtime and/or a fine, if 'developer1' doesn't limit the ways 'their product' can be used, IE for crime.
Now some replacement. Replace developer1 with the name of any firm that makes munitions (guns and bullets) and replace 'their product' with well... 'their product'.
Software developers get nailed for designing software which can be used to break the law and cause some loss of revenue, but the companies who make guns and bullets which can be used to kill you and/or your children, hijack planes, rob banks, convenience stores and other sources of revenue, have immunity to being help accountable in the same ways, for not doing the same thing.
'Guns can be bought on the black and grey market' so what? Software can be hacked.
If it's good enough for the goose, it's good enough for the gander imho, but make a lawmaker understand the point, and I'll eat my hat.
(Yay, a rant for my first post, and it's probably going to be flamed)
What are they going to store their code on? I'm afraid they'll be carving code on each other's skin.
Programmer a: "Take your pants off."
Programmer b: "I told you no hanky panky!"
Programmer a: "Relax, I just need to scratch a few more modules on you."
retards. look at this. if (gun_manufacturer.owner==big_defence_contractor) {activate.uber_lobby_group=1;} p2p has no INDUSTRY TO SUPPORT It. gunmakers are OFTEN DEFENSE SUBCONTRACTORS. the issue is a little man vs the big man problem. p2p subverts an industry, as a result, it will always be a target (wether from illegal disribution of their wares, or legal distribution of an OpenSource competitor, or independants who do not have the marketing reach) fuck you all for being blind
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
I'm developing a "P2P" program, and frankly, if it becomes as popular as I hope,
I don't care if you fine me a few thousand or put me in jail for a year.
-- Should you believe authority without question?
What about hand gun manufacturers? Why isn't they faced of such crime?
Their product are used for bank robbery and kills 1000 of people every day.
How can developers of a program be faced of a crime, when it is okay to manufacturer hand weapons that kills people?
Tim has perrty eyes! come over here hunny, you can be my cell mate!!
What we need is a new protocol. HP2PTTP - p2p tunnel over HTTP.
.02
How can you possibly sort through all of the p2p traffic if all you see is web traffic?
my
I seem to recall a couple of states trying to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the actions of their customers in court. I seem to recall that they got shot down pretty quickly. Their argument, if I recall correctly, is that if we can hold Big Tobacco responsible for all the people who got addicted to tobacco and ended up with cancer, then we should also be able to hold gun manufacturers responsible for the crimes of their customers. Apparently no one bought that...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Is being unprofitable. Net users are all witches as
long as they have a nickel in their pocket.
...so Microsoft better get ready for some big legal battles over folks that use Word and Excel to keep their records in check, Access databases put on the web listing all the titles in pages made with Frontpage and Notepad...
Seems a little far fetched? Look closely at the DMCA and say that again...
Things you can say to your dog that you can't say to a girl: "How about a nice bone?"
Are they going to process people who wrote all or part of the p2p network in California or are they going to only get those people still living in Cali?
Since web browsers make an exact copy of the pages you view, at least in memory and for images a more persistent copy in the cache, does that mean you are in copyright violation if you view a webpage that has copyrighted material? Make sure you clean your cache after visiting those porn sites, we wouldn't want any accidental infringement.
The truth is an illusion.
...until the P2P networks are destroyed, so that Skynet has enough bandwidth to activate.
This type of chemical tweaking is what lead to our current Controlled Substances Act. Previously, any new chemical compound would remain legal until congress passed yet another law to specifically prohibit it. Drugs like LSD and Extasy were briefly legal because of the limitations.
Now, any substance can be covered as Schedule 1 under the controlled substances act WITHOUT an act of congress. If you developed a new and unique chemical compound tomorrow that was an intoxicant. It would be completely legal until the right bureaucrats discovered it and decided in a secret meeting that it shouldn't be legal. Poof, it become a felony to possess or manufacture a substance that was completely legal the day before.
We are at the brink of similar restrictions being placed on software.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
God bless America.
SAILING MISHAP
[Warning : incomming I-hate-M$ troll ]
Hey ! Let's go after Microsoft !
Their file copy function (Drag'n'drop, cut&past, or "copy" command) is used almost 100% of time to copy the pirated music to usb keys / ipods / whatever...
And also, there's their CD-Burning functions in WindowsXP and in MediaPlayer !
[/warning]
More seriously
- Almost any peer-2-peer technology (or even whatever other technology) could be used to copy pirated music, even if the technology was developped and is used for legal purposed (like Bittorent which was initially developped as a better alternative to mirrors for distributing softwares, but nowadays can also be used to copy pirated movies)
- Their definition of peer-2-peer is completly vague and could be applied to almost any technology. (= a software that connects user to a network of other computers, where the user can get an exact copy of a media). This defenition could even be applied to the built-in PPP client of Windows !!! (Yes : It IS a SOFTWARE, that CONNECTS the user to a NETWORK (=The internet), where he can download BINARY EXACT copies of copyrighted files).
- The creator of the p2p software must do "reasonnable" efforts in order to prevent illegal use. BUT THERE'S NO DEFINITION TO WHAT IS A "REASONNABLE EFFORT" in the whole fscking article !!!
Maybe what most software alredy do (Pop-up saying that programm shouldn't be used for illegal purposes) is enough ?
Or maybe they want full DRM support (Something that even the PPP client doesn't do [yet], so Microsoft can get sued ?)
Once again, ladies and gentlemen, this is a good exemple of a completly meaningless law written by complete idiots that don't have a clue about the subjet (p2p networks).
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
go ahead, doesn't bother me at all
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Writing an a file transfer program is about to become illegal. That's about the only way to describe the latest bill to be put forward by California Senator Murray. It is of course a law sponsored by the music and video industries, but it is one of the worst so far. What the law says essentially is that if you as the developer of a piece of software that transmits files does not ensure that you "exercise reasonable care" to not send copyrighted material. Here is the meaty part of SB 96, as introduced, Murray. Peer-to-peer networks: file sharing software.
So, a year in prison and a $2,500 fine. All that for any transfer of a copyrighted file between two people. Of course the implication also arises that this could be per use as are other laws already in place.
How ludicrous is this law? Well, suppose we substitute software with CD/DVD. That means that any CD replication equipment manufacturer is tasked with scanning the material to write to ensure it is not copyrighted. Wait! It is about the software so this does imply that through electronic means a CD/DVD burner manufacturer has to look for copyrights. Wow!
But wait, it gets better, note this piece: "obscene matter depicting a minor under 18 years of age, or tampering with, interference with, damage to, or unauthorized access to computer data or systems". That means you need to detect child porn, viruses, and even spyware. Double wow!!! Of course, I am sure that Senator Murray's argument starts with child porn and viruses but the real agenda is the record and movie companies. Guess what? Senator Murray is a member of the Select Committee on the Entertainment Industry. Does that surprise anyone? I'd feel better if he really was fighting child porn.
Of course there is no definition of "exercise reasonable care" which is a mockery we have seen in a lot of other laws. What is 'reasonable'? How would you detect
But this law gets worse by its broad meaning. What is the definition of "peer-to-peer"? P2P is really person-to-person via an electronic means by definition and context of this law. This makes web browsers, TCP/IP, HTTP, FTP, telnet, and dozens of other technologies that move bits around not only illegal, but can put a CEO in prison. Hear that Steve, Bill, Linus, and Scott? You are all going down for your heinous crimes!
If you live in California, you need to fight to stop this law.
AP - "The Postmaster General has be fined $250,000,000 and sentenced to 578,000,000 years in prison in a landmark IP case. Spokesman for the prosecution, Lars "Asshat" Ulrich, said in a public statement 'He didn't take reasonable percautions to protect my money, and now I'm gonna skullfuck his children!'
UTF-8: There and Back Again
" They ought to just declare HTTP, FTP, UDP, TCP, and IP illegal. After all, they're used for almost 100% of digital piracy."
You claim that most digital piracy occurs over the internet, and sarcastically claim the internet should be made illegal. However, There are a lot of legitimate uses for HTTP, FTP, etc, and it would be ridiculous to say the majority of activities using these protocals is piracy. In contrast, p2p use is overwhelmingly used for piracy above all other uses. Anyway, consider that you may be the inbecile with no cleart reasoning skills as well as understanding of basic rights.
I don't see car manufacturers taking any measures for making sure that there products are not used for such things as get away cars and a weapon to run people over with...
There is a difference between a product whose major use is in illegal activities, and a product that can be used for illegal activities.
These are the liberals all you /. losers voted for.
The following contributed to Sen. Murray in the 2003-2004 election season:
Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. - $1,000, 8/23/2004
Motion Picture Association of America CA PAC (MPAA) - $1,000, 8/16/2004
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. - $158.02, 5/27/2004
Recording Artists Coalition - $5,300, 6/30/2004
Fox Group - $1,000, 6/15/2004
Paramount Pictures Group - $1,000, 5/27/2004
Motion Picture Association Of America CA PAC (MPAA) - $1,000, 5/27/2004
Warner Brothers PAC - $1,000, 5/27/2004
Don Henley, musician (The Eagles) - $5,300, 3/4/2003
Howard S. Welinsky, Warner Brothers Senior Vice President - $500, 3/6/2003
American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) - $1,000, 3/20/2003
National Association of Theatre Owners of California/Nevada - $1,000, 3/20/2003
Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc. - $5,004.93, 3/20/2003
Glenn Frey, musician (The Eagles) - $5,000, 4/2/2003
Warner Brothers PAC - $1,000, 4/1/2003
Paramount Pictures Group - $1,000, 4/2/2003
Broadcast Music, Inc. (BMI) - $1,000, 4/24/2003
Fox Group - $1,000, 5/15/2003
Disney Worldwide - $1,000, 5/27/2003
American Society of Composers, Authors & Publishers (ASCAP) - $1,000, 2/11/2004
Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. - $1,000, 2/9/2004
Disney Worldwide Services, Inc. - $1,000, 9/30/2003
Clear Channel Worldwide - $1,000, 10/2/2003
Microsoft - $2,000, 10/23/2003
Vivendi Universal Entertainment LLP - $2,000, 12/12/2003
Motion Picture Association of America CA PAC (MPAA) - $1,000, 12/15/2003
Paramount Pictures Group - $1,000, 12/10/2003
There were also several telecoms, cable companies, entertainment industry agents, etc. The Recording Artists Coalition (Henley and Frey are members) may or may not be evil; your call.
who fails to exercise reasonable care in preventing use of the software to commit an unlawful act with respect to a commercial recording or audiovisual work, or a violation of provisions related to production, possession, distribution, or advertisement of obscene matter depicting a minor under 18 years of age, or tampering with, interference with, damage to, or unauthorized access to computer data or systems
The phrase "exercise reasonable care in preventing the use of ..." really is ambigious. Does the drafter want the developer to actually code in safeguards to prevent any potential file being traded from violating those restrictions? Or is it as simple as just placing a user license agreement that the user will void if they fail to adhere to those restrictions.
AFAIK, it's virtually impossible to prevent illegal material from passing through a p2p network and would be ridiculous to place the onus of such a task on the developer. It must be made clear what is meant by "exercising reasonable care". If it's left as ambigiously stated as it is currently, then EVERY p2p creator in the past, present, and future will be guilty under this law.
Yesterday two members of the Underground Network pleaded guilty to a couple of infringement charges. I think they are looking at around 5 years and 250K$ fines, but with a plea who knows. They were operating DC hubs where FBI agents downloaded 20 thousand and 7 thousand dollars worth of files. The number of files though was like 55 and 30. Thats a pretty hefty price per file....
Trying to stop a natural step in the evolution of technology is just plain stupid, not to mention impossible.
Trying to force people to pay for music without offering some other incentive is just not going to work. The whole point of the capitalist economic system is to distribute limited goods. If the supply of something (strings of 1s and zeros) is so high as for supply to be effectively infinite, the going price drops to effectively zero.
At this point, the only limiter for digitized information is the supply of bandwidth, ie the time to transfer a given block of data. The time to transfer a typical song of perhaps 5MB is less than a minute at DSL speed. So the oportunity cost of pulling down a whole album is less time than it would cost to arrive at the brick-n-mortar music store. Compare, and for a lot of people it's an easy choice.
On the other hand, video with some semblance of quality runs at least 700-800MB per hour, which is around an hour at nonstop 1.5 megabit per second ADSL speed. 2 hour feature film = 2 hour download = at least $16 of time at minimum wage. An even toss with paying for a movie, with no surround sound and 1/100 the resolution of 35mm film. DVD quality = probably 1.6GB per hour * 2 hour movie = 3.2GB = at least 4 to 5 hour download = ~$40 at min wage with no bonus features, no chapters, etc.
Thus, audio piracy is rampant because a decent quality mp3 can be duplicated for a lower cost in time (which equals money) than going to the store (and you get to pick and choose what you want). Movie piracy is far less so, because it costs more time to transfer a movie than it's worth to most people as anything other than a preview.
To add another analogy, think of pay-to-play or subscription-only news websites. Even though the amount of digital information contained in the days news is trivial, it's not a major issue. Sure, there are ways to penetrate the subscription requirement, but for the most part they take more time than it's worth (Or you never considered changing your UserAgent string to 'Googlebot 2.1').
In short, the only way for the RIAA as we know it to survive is to offer something that can't easily be duplicated (and I'm not talking about their retarded 'press shift' copy-protection schemes). Much as DVDs offer much more than just the movie (extras, interviews, soundtracks, etc). It's a given that one out there, music will be digitized and the supply of the music itself will become essentially infinite. Perhaps the RIAA should consider holding the creative talent 'hostage,' in the sense of saying that they won't release the new CD until the old one makes so and so many sales (Of course, this would also require listening to feedback regarding music which sells poorly because it's crap). Naw... We'll sooner see honest politicians, congressional term limits, and world peace.
Fire lawsuit torpedoes! Power up corruption guns! All ahead into the abyss!
Jimi Hendrix is a bad example. As of 2002, Jimi's estate has agreed to allow any as-yet-unreleased recordings of Jimi's music to be freely traded (well, non-commercially, which the FSF would call "semi-free", but good enough for most people).
The Furthurnet Permission Email.
Maybe something like this.
if prompt_user("Do you plan to do anything illegal?"):
___ sys.exit(0)
And the l33t shall inherit the 34r7h.
The intent doesn't matter, only the actual wording of the law. Arguing that it was never intended to cover web browsers won't save your ass in court, ask any lawyer.
And no, that's not worse before it gets better, it's just going to get worse. At the rate things are currently going, I expect there will be no user-programmable computing devices in the common person's hands within a very few number of years. In fact, I anticipate that even owning such a computer, unless it is properly licensed, may subject a person to heavy fines.
We, the highly opinionated readers of slashdot, don't add up to a hill of beans when it comes to this sort of thing. They don't give a fuck about us, and they never will.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
You better stop downloading terminator, or the real terminator will come for you!
...0
What happens if a law liek this passes? Does it make anyone that makes any program capable of transfereing data liable for it's use? Why is it not okay to go after gun companies for making guns that are used in crimes, but it's okay to do this? The logic of the US lawmakers that are in the pockets of big entertainment is just baffling.
What if I kill someone, will my parents have to pay the fine?
I think the intended(?) analogy is that firearm manufacturers should design their guns so that they are harder to use in illegal activities such as hold-ups, and that P2P developers must include features like DRM so that P2P cannot be used to commit illegal activities like swapping music.
The recent Slashdot story about biometric authorised guns shows that unworkable technical solutions are also available for firearms. You can imagine the outcry if the state demanded that all guns must include some kind of overide mechanism that in some way limited how that gun may be used.
The demands are actually quite similar, yet the position is radically different.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
... your uncle's third cousin is your third cousin (once removed)...
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Movie Industry---$16,788.
Music Industry---$ 7,931.
Computer Industry and software $ 500.
And the winner of the auction is the Copyright Cartel.
More nonviolent "criminals" in jail.
Hey, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe people should be put in an environment in which they will get beaten up, raped, and, when they get out, will be unable to get a job that involves either
asking "Do you want frys with that?"
prositution
selling drugs.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
While we arrest them for developing P2P, lets go ahead and arrest car makers for all the felonies committed with cars, gun makers for guns used in crime. Why not, just go ahead and jail anyone that makes an innovation thats capable of being used in a crime.
Bill Gates could end up in jail, since most of the software runs on windows... he could be blamed for all the spyware and malware that turns a regular pc into a kiddie porn server, since said software installs so easily on windows, so MS is not taking "reasonable care" to prevent this from happening.
So finally MS could be forced to give a fuck about security.
Go hug some trees.
You know, I've got a problem. I'd love to write a polite, well-reasoned, cogent letter explaining why this proposal is silly.
Unfortunately, I can't get past, "IT'S ALL JUST FUCKING BITS!".
Example:
.223 round have multiple uses in a black colored rifle! Come on.
Go buy a Mini 14 Ranch Rifle, great for picking of destructive varmits. Next, remove the factory wooden stock and replace it with a black synthetic stock. Next, add a bi-pod and a flash suppressor. Viola, your rifle is now incappable of shooting farm and ranch damaging rodents. Your rifle MUST only be used for targeting people.
After all, it uses the same round as a M16. No way could could the
Shutting down distributers of P2P is a logistical impossibility.
San Jose readers of Esquire may have recognized a familiar name in the magazine this month: Exiled Mercury News reporter Gary Webb, now an investigator for the state Legislature, has a 10-page spread in this month's Esquire about police profile stops, "Driving While Black," a must-read for local law enforcement officials. ... Still, Eye couldn't help but chuckle at one of the "victims" of profile stops mentioned in the piece, Los Angeles state Sen. Kevin Murray. Actually, Webb only mentions Murray--an African American who was pulled over and questioned in Beverly Hills after winning the June primary--in passing. Webb's New Yorkbased editors, however, figured that was enough to devote a full page to a black-and-white portrait of Murray. Perhaps they didn't know that three months ago Murray was reportedly questioned by police after being caught with his pants down--literally--with a well-known Hollywood hooker in his state-owned Corvette in broad daylight. According to L.A. scribe Jill Stewart, the "profile" cops had on Murray was a grown man with a woody standing in front of a prostitute sitting in the 'Vette's passenger seat. For reasons that remain unclear, police did not arrest either the hooker or the up-and-coming lawmaker.
I cannot think of one Instant Messaging application that doesn't include File Transfer capability between communicating parties.
Do I have to uninstall AIM, Yahoo, MSN, Trillian, et cetera now?
Better yet, if we all install MSN and start transferring files, will Billy go directly to jail.
The makers of the internet, the people whom first made it public, the first few servers... Let us go after the people who created the idea of the technology (and if anyone remembers the thing about al gore claiming that he created the internet, we can blame him ;) )
I mean come on, what's next?
SEC. 2.
The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this
act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not
affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect
without the invalid provision or application.
It looks as though even if you were to get around the stupid exact copy language it wouldn't matter, the other pieces of the legislation are severable so they still apply.
Isn't there something illegal about banning software that isn't a virus and causes damage, if there isn't it should be. The software that falls under this wide net would include basically anything that get send a file, email attachments, some IM, ftp, sftp, web browser. If the internet was left up to the business men it would have died long ago.
Euphemism, what is that a euphemism for something.
HEY! does this mean that Micro$oft will be held accountable for its lack of security?? And allowing malware and such to be installed upon it?? Or is this just a blow to us regular users? ...
I guess its too much to hope that actual criminals will be brought to justice isnt it?
"When a transaction is complete, the user has an identical copy of the file on his or her computer..."
I could write a program right now to generate files of the same length as britney_oops.mp3 and fill them w/ random bits, and eventually I would have a copy of it verbatim, without ever having access to the original or a p2p program. Sure I might not know which one is the true copy but, that raises the question: am I a criminal for possessing or using the algorithm and seed to generate that file? Probably...so shouldn't we be trying to ban random number generaters too?
Nice work, you fucking dumbasses
yep.. lets ban the internet.. again (sigh)
-if at first you don't succeed, stay the heck away from paragliding.
While I am not a lawyer, I see this type of statute as having no legal authority as it attempts to criminalize conduct which is either potentially legal (as might be in the case of fair use) or which Congress has already set penalties and has specifically pre-empted any form of state protection. I believe these type laws would be found unconstitutional or invalid as having been overridden by Congress. It was made clear by the 1978 law and later changes including the Berne Convention Accession that Congress wanted to eliminate any state control over copyright with the exception of most* sound recordings which were fixed prior to February 15, 1972 which it has declared are not copyrightable (and to which states will have no power to provide any form of copyright protection after February 15, 2047.)
*"Most" being recordings which were not subject to copyright protection under the Urugay Round Agreements Act for materials otherwise subject to copyright in other countries and would have been in the Public Domain here but whose copyright is restored as a result of that act, subject to specific registration under the Urugay agreement, to give those who were legally using material notice that the works now have copyright protection or have had it restored if it lapsed.
The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
Move out of CA
If the people lead, the leaders will follow.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!