Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Jail Time For P2P Developers?

Posted by timothy on from the revenge-of-the-idiots dept.

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 ..."

5 of 826 comments (clear)

  1. What about Independents?!?! by filmmaker · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:What about Independents?!?! by finkployd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hollywood bought and paid for the property rights to film-making

      The true irony of course is that Hollywood exists only because the filmmakers who first set up shop there did so to be as far away from Thomas Edison as possible. Since Edison owned the intellectual property (patents) on making motion pictures and they wanted to produce movies illegaly without paying him royalties.

      So what better group to become the strongest proponants for strict property rights?

      Finkployd

  2. WHat about a law... by ooze · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  3. There's this thing called a browswer cache by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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

  4. Re:Apply the same to guns? by paranode · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I wish it were unconstitutional but you seem to be misinformed. Many states (who have their own constitutional provisions for arms) are starting to adopt laws to prevent gun manufacturers from being held liable for this kind of thing. However, in the land of Fruits and Nuts where anything goes as long as it's fruity and nutty, gun companies do get sued for this kind of thing. The NRA lobbied to get a federal law passed which would indemnify manufacturers against suits brought about by negligence or improper use (including illegal use). However, the Democrats used the pork barrel tactic to ride some more anti-gun legislature on the end of that bill so the NRA withdrew its support and the bill sank.

    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'.