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 ..."
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
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.
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
Seems like the P2P issue is very parellel (as far as legal rights) to the gun issue. Only most people can't wrap their heads around this because a lot of liberal-minded people who support openness and civil rights conveniently think guns should be excluded because they're 'bad, mmkay'.
I agree with your post except for one part
:P
Since when was a gun developed that took "reasonable care" in preventing accidental death?
I don't think this law targets tools that allow accidental downloading of copyrighted material. Now had you said that sentence without the accidental clause it would have been fine
[/nitpick]
Yeah, but the potential loss of revenue due to file sharing is much higher than people killing each other in the streets, get your priorities straight, buddy! This is America! :-)
I myself was born in Canada, and still live here -- although alot of people have guns for hunting purposes, very few (comparatively) gun related murders occur, is this a result of population difference?
Ideally, your rights are ranked as the top-most important priority, and I can respect that many americans wish to exercise the right to bear arms... not straying from the actual topic:
In Canada, if your child commits a crime, you are not responsible for their ACTIONS, but are responsible for their welfare (wellbeing, and health)
Using the same ideology, gun manufacturers should not be held responsible for the actions of their customers, they only manufactured a tool, the same as (mentioned in an earlier post) how auto manufacturers are not responsible for running down an innocent bystander
Although I am very "what you call liberal" I do not think that responsibility should be placed with the organizations/companies that manufacture tools which could be used in a variety of ways -- responsibility is in the individual
Therefore, the responsibility of the P2P Programmer should not be to ensure that their tools are used to download pirate software/music/movies, as it is only a tool.
I could go on, but it's all the same point.
Last time I checked, MSN Messenger and Hyperterminal support p2p file transfers.
"Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
*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.
Most voters who say that are eligible to run for at least some office, too. Even if you can't run, you can still get involved in the local party organizations to have more direct voice in who runs and what policies they follow.
We all know most politicians only remember their constituents 6 months before elections. I agree that they are doing a terrible job as representatives of the people.
The trouble is that they're also terrible representatives of business interests. As you mentioned, such short-sighted legislation is only pushing America further into technological irrelevance.
I cannot say that there is no one else to vote for, it's just that not many people are so unhappy, so fed-up, that they desire the change that a 'third party' candidate would attempt to bring to the governance of the country (self not included).
We in the U.S. live in a country full of sheep. And those of us not of sheep ilk must deal with it...
there is no one else to vote for. That's why voter turnout is so low.
There are plenty of other people to vote for, but they dont have the advertising budget of the majors.
no
on a semi-related issue, Wal*Mart won't sell a certian type of battery and cough syrup to the same person at the same register. They have a big sign up with all the ingredients used to make meth, and don't sell any of the items together ... i thought it a *BAD* idea to list all the ingredients used to make meth in a workplace.
just a laymans example of a product that exists harmlessly until someone uses it for something else.
you can't have everything, where would you put it?
Sorry, I don't see your point.
P2P runs over these protocols.
The point he's making is these protocols provide the means to break the law in exactly the same way as the P2P software does, with exactly the same absence of any kind of anti-piracy provision.
Are you saying P2P should be banned because it's mostly used for piracy? Whereas the underlying protocols themselves aren't, so they're ok? Couldn't you just as easily say that the Internet should be banned entirely at work and in schools because it's mostly used for porn rather than educational/business purposes.
How exactly would one go about adapting the Internet protocols or P2P software to ban piracy anyway?! Sounds like a machine learning problem to me.
This law is ridiculous and typical of ignorant corporate America: when they see a threat to massive empire, their first reaction is to make stupid laws wihtout understanding the subject matter and try to sue everybody!
Coding Monkey.org - Spanging the heavy spade of truth into t
The parent is right. Guns are among the least likely weapons to be used accidentally, no matter how likely they are to be used negligently. More than that, the gp is right, albeit unintentionally: the major reason for gun safety improvements over the years is due to the application of legal sanctions against weapons manufacturers, which were held liable for failure to exercise due care in preventing accidental discharge.
/., I expect the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit on Kazaa, and to do it without reversing _Betamax_ at all. Remember, Betamax had two key points: a device with significant non-infringing uses was not illegal, and time-shifting was fair use. Both sides agreed that the major use to which VCR's were put was time-shifting, and therefore, if time-shifting was not an infringement, then it provided a significant non-infringing use.
All that said, I don't understand the value in Murray's bill. Contrary to the current cant here on
It's not clear to me that Betamax protects P2P systems like Kazaa. The standard arguments in favor of P2P systems tend to talk about rare uses such as distribution of fringe materials by the copyright holders themselves. Those may be uses, but they are not significant uses in the real world. Until P2P companies take steps to make them significant, it isn't likely that Betamax applies.
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.
What if you use the gun to hold up a record company executive?
Hell, with the technology we have now, lets do away with the representatives completely. Let the people vote by phone, or similar. Make it so it is a 1:1 representative ratio.
P2P software as a class has significant non-infringing use. Some P2P networks (kazaa, suprnova) are mostly used to facilitate copyright violation, but that is the use to which those network operators put the software.
The fair use points of Betamax are not relevant to P2P. Finding of time shifting being fair use allowed a claim of substantial non-infringement. Establishment of fair use was only needed in Betamax to allow a claim non-infringing use, P2P software already has non-infringement.
[Set Cain on fire and steal his lute.]
I can't mod you up, but I would if I could on the end comment alone. That said, there is more to the firearm industry immunity from liability than meets the eye...
There are two situations in which gun companies get sued when a person is injured by a gun. In the first situation, he was shot by someone else. I would have to dig through my notes, but a solid legal argument can be made for either side in this case as to whether the intervening criminal or tortious act of the person shooting the gun cuts off liability from the gun manufacturer. The immunity bills are aimed at this situation.
However, a second scenario can, and does, occur. Suppose I am out at the shooting range with my new $150 pistol (for the non-gun people here: that's extremely cheap (not as in inexpensive), and I would personally not buy a new gun for less than $400, for the reasons that follow...) and on the third shot the chamber fails to contain the explosing and the slide is blown up, pieces of shrapnel being peeled off and thrown into my hand, arm, and face. Clearly, the manufacturer should be held liable for selling a completely unsafe product. I am not convinced that the bills in question still allow lawsuits in this scenario, and that's bad.
What needs to happen is a definite regime set out that says that the intervening criminal (and probably throw in intentionally tortious) acts of a third party cut off all liability from the plaintiff to the product manufacturer. If it's Glock's fault that I'm injured, I should be able to recover from Glock. But if Jimmy shoots me with a Glock, I should not be able to recover from Glock, barring some level of criminal negligence by Glock such as giving out free pistols to escaped felons or something.
fuh!
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES
as opposed to assault weapons, which are designed specifically for human targets
You had me up to this point.
There are no such things as "assault weapons." The term passed into the public consciousness in 1994 with the passage of the so-called assault weapons ban, which banned such things as flash-suppressors and folding stocks, but didn't ban semi-automatic rifles. It was emblamatic of the Clinton presidency - he handed a propaganda victory to his party while handing a real victory to his opponenets. (Dismantling welfare? Fine. Gays in the army? Ok, but only if they don't ACT gay. Universal health care? Won't happen for another 20 years, thanks to Hillary.)
Anyway...
If you are really concerned with what anti-gun nuts call "assault weapons," may I suggest that you put your efforts into opposing the sale to civilians of ANY armament which is sold to ANY military organization in the world. If a weapon's intended use is military, as evidenced by its sale to the military, then it is not suitable for civilian ownership. End of discussion. The pro-gun nuts might have a problem with this, but this is an argument that could appeal to people of all political stripes (apart from the extremists on both sides). Anti-gun nuts would rather try and fail repeatedly to ban ALL guns, rather than engaging in reasonable compromises that would remove military weaponry from the hands of civilians. Pro-gun nuts demand the right to own 120mm artillery pieces and 25mm automatic cannons. Ordinary people see no universal right to own an M-16. (I gotta admit, though, that firing one on full-auto is pretty nifty. Anybody who wants to do that is invited to join the military.)
engaging in reasonable compromises that would remove military weaponry from the hands of civilians.
Just the opposite is true. Citizens being capable of forming up a militia is the explicitly defined purpose of the 2nd Amendment. Hunting is not. The pro-gun argument that guns are merely innocent tools and someone using one to kill a person is misusing it is utter bullcrap. That's what a lot of them are designed for (a hand pistol is generally not for hunting). The pro-gun argument that actually holds water is this: Yes, guns are designed for the purpose of being a weapon. They are designed to be able to harm people. And, since governments want militaries, guns will exist in the world, like it or not. So given that they will always exist, do you want them to be ONLY in the hands of the government? That way leads to totalitarian governments who pass any law they feel like without regard for whether it enrages their citizens or not, since the enraged citizens are impotent to resist the government.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
I've been saying this for some time now. I think the original ratio was 1:35k. That would be something like 8000 congressman, which is a little unwieldy, but we could certainly change the cap to 1000. Having over twice as many congressman would make a difference. With smaller constituencies they would become more responsive, and there would be a greater chance of third parties winning which enhances diversity of political thought. And that's what's sorely needed!
A side effect would be the greater power accorded to large states in the Electoral College, which many who want to abolish it would like to see. I'm not among those, as the EC has a very essential role if you study the federal design of our national gov't and the reasons for it.
Constitutionally Correct
If the state of California passes [insert state code ref here], this is what this web site will look like. Write your legislators.
Link to [link]bill text[/link]
Link to [link]EFF page[/link]
Link to [link]CA legislature email page[/link]
Link to [link]Our main page[/link]
Then email everyone you know at the networks and ask them to do a story on it. If you do this, the bill will not pass without being fixed. If you don't, this horrible piece of ill-conceived legislation will haunt every programmer doing -any- Internet-based application until it gets struck down in court.
It's sad when someone with good intentions does something that shows such a complete and total lack of understanding of the subject.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Citizens being capable of forming up a well-regulated is the explicitly defined purpose of the 2nd amendment. Reasonable people can disagree about the definition of "well-regulated," but the courts believe that it is the state governments that should regulate it. (Would that the states governments weren't the lapdogs of the federal government, but that's a rant for a different day.)
Note that I did not say no guns. I said no military weaponry. There's a subtle distinction there that you may have missed. Note also that the founding fathers did not write into the Constitution OR the Bill of Rights the right to own purely military weaponry. There is no "right to own cannons" in the 2nd amendment, just as there is no "right to own a fully-automatic machine gun" or "right to own a M1A1 Abrams complete with 1,000 HEAT rounds."
The argument you present is that you wish to have the right to shoot at Marines or US Army soldiers should you choose to do so. As a former soldier, I object vociferously to your position. If you are afraid of your government, permit me to point out the idiocy of opposing B-52s with M-16s or AK-47s.
Good point, bad example.
:)
Probably, but my point wasn't to have the lighters be childproof, but rather to have an age dependant switch/sensor to discourage underage smoking - ie, making sure nobody under 18 could operate the lighter - being childproof would simply be a welcome side effect of an age 18 switch/sensor.
As a side comment, maybe a solution to the health concerns of smoking would be to make lighters adult-proof...
Christopher Alexander describes this in the pattern 'Populations of 7000'...if your elected official represents too many more people than that, you tend not to have a voice in the community.
What makes this especially frustrating is, as he points out, this isn't exactly new wisdom...
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.