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 ..."

Comments

Representatives of the People, Indeed

[the_mad_poster]

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[garcia]

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.

The P2P developers need gun lobbyists on their side! Since when was a gun developed that took "reasonable care" in preventing accidental death? The gun should be able to detect human presence and not fire a round! Yeah, it might cost a lot of money and time to develop that feature but we have to make sure that people don't use it the wrong way!

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sought to ban illegal downloading on any state computers, including those owned by the state university systems.

Are they talking about State University networks or just their computers? If I am paying tuition *and* a technology fee to directly support the network I am using it as an ISP and thus the University network should not fall under this... If I am using a University purchased computer connected to that network then I see no problems with it.

"We're only asking for reasonable controls. We're not asking for people to create new technology or recreate the wheel."

What's "reasonable"? When they realize that the swappers will immediately get around ANY filtering that the P2P apps do will they decide that the rudimentary filters aren't "reasonable"?

Napster banned individual songs from being traded and everyone started encoding entire albums as a single MP3 to throw them off. People hide, encrypt, and subvert tons of different "safety" measures all the time. When are they going to realize that "reasonable" is more difficult than they believe?

Let the MPAA and the RIAA track down and find the individuals serving these materials up and have them find their REAL NAMES, REAL ADDRESSES, and sue them themselves. I have no problem with them doing some real leg work to get the people at the heart of the issue. I do have a problem with allowing them to just be handed these records by ISPs, etc.

Stop paying off the local/federal governments to pass hasty laws to do your dirty work.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[SirGarlon]

Here's a better idea. People could stop voting for candidates who's agenda starts and stops with business interests.

They have. Trouble is, there is no one else to vote for. That's why voter turnout is so low.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[crunk]

they obviously have no clue how the technology they're drafting against works

You hit the nail on the head here. I am sure there are business reasons for this, but I believe the main problem is that these old guys don't really understand the technology.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Badgerman]

My concern with these laws is that if the greedy but technically ignorant get such laws passed that, yes, they won't be able to truly enforce them - but they'll do a heck of a lot of damage trying.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[aussie_a]

I agree with your post except for one part

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 :P

[/nitpick]

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Andrewkov]

The P2P developers need gun lobbyists on their side! Since when was a gun developed that took "reasonable care" in preventing accidental death? The gun should be able to detect human presence and not fire a round! Yeah, it might cost a lot of money and time to develop that feature but we have to make sure that people don't use it the wrong way!

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! :-)

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

"Here's a better idea. People could stop voting for candidates
whose agenda starts and stops with business interests."

You are correct in a theoretical sense, however the mechanics of the US system are stacked against you.

The problem is that the number of congressman is capped at 435 since the year 1913. This means that each congressman serves about a half-million constituents. This was not the intent of the founders. Previous to the year 1913, as the population grew, more congressman were added.

Unfortunately, now as the population grows, so does the power of the individual congressman. When the country was founded, the President himself only served a citizenry of a couple of few million.

We need to increase the size of the House of Representatives ten-fold at least. One congressman per 50K constituents would make the congressman more amenable to the will of the people than to big business lobbyists.

If you want to work for change, than the first goal should be to remove he cap on the number of representatives. Until then, our democratic representation is essentially an illusion.

By the way, this explains why public opinion polls are so often at odds with government policy. In a true representative democracy there should be a rough correlation between opinion polls and the way members of congress act. This is rarely the case nowadays.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Riddlefox]

The P2P developers need gun lobbyists on their side! Since when was a gun developed that took "reasonable care" in preventing accidental death? The gun should be able to detect human presence and not fire a round! Yeah, it might cost a lot of money and time to develop that feature but we have to make sure that people don't use it the wrong way!

Are you being serious or humorous? Virtually every single gun has at least one safety on it to prevent accidental discharges. These include drop safeties to prevent the hammer from falling if the gun is dropped, a manual safety to lock the hammer/sear in the cocked position and prevent the trigger from being pulled, grip safeties to ensure that the trigger can only be pulled if the pistol is being held properly, trigger safeties (such as on Glocks) to ensure that the trigger can only be pulled if the entire trigger face is pressed, and not just snagged, loaded chamber indicators, disconnectors to keep the firearm from going full-auto, and so on and so on. Multiple mechanical devices have to fail for a firearm to accidentally fire.

Note that there is a fine distinction between Accidental Discharges and Negligent Discharges. Accidental Discharges occur when the mechanical devices do fail, and the firearm fires when no shot was intended. Some SKS's were notorious for inadvertantly going full-auto when the sear catch failed, and the rifle slam-fired. Negligent Discharges occurs when a person violates a basic rule of firearm handling, and fires a shot when s/he did not intend to. 99.9% of the time, this is what happened when "the gun just went off!" - the person had their finger on the trigger and pulled it when they were not paying attention.

Your invention would have to read the user's mind - what if I want to shoot that mugger coming at me with a lead pipe?

I'm not intending to start a RKBA debate here, I merely wanted to educate.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[rlwhite]

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[0x0000]

I was going to tell you to STFU so as not to give them any ideas, but ...

let's just declare the intarweb illegal and impose fines for anyone who uses it.

... I see you're onto the Master Plan; a key factor you didn't mention, though (I can say this because it's already been leaked elsewhere): It won't just be fines, for individuals.

Fines are for gigantic corps (except for M$ - their "Windows Networking" P2P software will go unpunished along with the anti-trust "mis-understanding". I'm not clear on why, but I think it has something to do with Gate's head being better than average; or perhaps it's just youthful exuberence)...

Use of TCP/IP on a machine not under the direct control of a corporation will be defined as Terrorism, and we're working up to the Death penalty for that; fines are for wimpy states; Real Men who are Not Girly Terminate the criminals/terrorists/ ....

... ain't that right, Arnie, you corporate fascist bitch, you... [sorry, this isn't directed at the poster, here] ... just wondering why an alleged Consevative in a position to do so hasn't already voluteered to veto this POS legislation ... it can only mean he's a Girly Man!

Can this be considered "defamation" yet? Regardless, California is lost...

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[killbill!]

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[HTH NE1]

I would have gone with, "Since when was a crowbar developed that took `reasonable care' in preventing its use in prying open locked desk drawers?"

Unfortunately the people who think this is possible will be pointing to changes to photocopiers and graphics software in preventing casual counterfeiting.

Now where's my candlestick? I have a surprise appointment in the Library with Professor Plum.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[number_man]

They have. Trouble is, there is no one else to vote for. That's why voter turnout is so low.

Voter turnout is the highest it has been since 1968 (60.7%). When I cast my ballot, there were 8 choices for president of the U.S.; three of which I honestly didn't know anything about.

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...

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[skarmor]

Nice straw-man argument. Lets compare the ratio of copyright breaking activities VS non copyright breaking activities those protocols have and compare them with p2p's ratio. I think you may find p2p to have a significantly higher ratio.

How is anyone supposed to determine what the ratio of copyright breaking activities vs non-copyright breaking activities is for each protocol? I mean, we can't possibly know what kind of data every single HTTP, FTP, NNTP session is transferring right? And even if we did know, how we would weed out those transfers that appear to be copyright infringement but are actually fair use?

I agree this law is bad, but there's no need to use straw-man arguments to make your point.

It looks to me like the only one making straw man arguments is you.

P.S. I know this will get modded down offtopic or flame-bait, but I've got Karma to burn and it needed to be said.

Ah, the good ol' "mod me down" strategy for getting modded up -- classic.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[bludstone]

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[C0d1ngM0nk3y]

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!

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[e-gold]

Not to further-fuel the endless RKBA debate, but can anyone here imagine ANY product besides guns *not* being forced to adopt "silencers" (actually suppressors, but let's stick with the ignorant Hollyweird-terminology for now!) in the USA if invented yesterday? Instead, getting a silencer in the USA is *much* harder than getting a normal, Title one weapon, and costs $200 along with all the hassle. I can tell everyone who hasn't tried one, suppressors make shooting a LOT more-fun (and safer). And no, plinking with a suppressor didn't magically transform me into a mobster bent on murder.

Does this rarely-questioned policy reduce crime? Dubious (in Finland, you can buy suppressors in a hardware store, and I haven't heard of any crime-wave there.)! Across much of Europe it's actually illegal to shoot WITHOUT suppressors, because of all the noise guns make). Europe muddles along anyway. Does it increase government-control of law-abiding citizen-units while NOT affecting criminals (who'll by-definition break the law!)? Absolutely -- and that's the only purpose of 99.99% of gun-laws, whether or not their authors (who are normally safety-Nazis, at least when it comes to issues like industrial noise-levels being generated in more-politically-correct ways!) will ever directly admit it.

But this particular law, as populations get more-dense, also has the pernicious effect of slowly getting rid of guns & accurate shooting as a hobby due to the noise. Hiram Maxim, who invented both the machinegun and the suppressor back when the USA was a much-freeer country, would probably be mystified today at our politicians' useless anti-fun/anti-gun antics. The NRA, which is supposedly so-powerful, does NOT represent machinegun or "silencer" users because the media will beat them up as representing mobsters rather than looking at the hearing-safety issue. This is because the news media in general are ignorant, bigoted, and biased against individual firearms owners who tell it like it is (ie me). I don't blame them, since I destroy their arguments (see above) I must be unpleasant, so flame-away, leftist-ACs.

I still know I'm right.
JMR

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[YU Nicks NE Way]

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.

All that said, I don't understand the value in Murray's bill. Contrary to the current cant here on /., 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.

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[The Snowman]

Let the MPAA and the RIAA track down and find the individuals serving these materials up and have them find their REAL NAMES, REAL ADDRESSES, and sue them themselves.

This is a weird, new concept -- letting the IP owners go after infringers themselves, without FBI raids, without special laws. What was so wrong with existing copyright law that we needed the DMCA or even this proposed bill? Maybe I am just an oddball, but I thought property rights were the responsibility of the property owners, not the state. If someone steals my car I might call the police, but ultimately it is my responsibility to take care of the situation by suing the thief and hoping the jury gives him justice. All the police do is return the property, which does not apply in IP cases. If someone "steals" my IP, I should have to track that person down myself, and as before, take them to court and deal with it myself.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[BobPaul]

Lets compare the ratio of copyright breaking activities VS non copyright breaking activities those protocols have and compare them with p2p's ratio. I think you may find p2p to have a significantly higher ratio

Well, seeing as FTP is the Protocol of choice on much of the back end for piracy groups, FTP probably has a really high ratio of illegal MB/legal MB transfered, probably similar to the ratio seen through Bittorrent. IRC most definatly has more illegal traffic (MB/MB) than legal traffic, but it's also used quite a bit for legal discussions which don't use quite so much bandwidth...

The fact is that the bill in question defines P2P as:
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.

Under this definition, IRC, HTTP, and FTP all clearly fall into this category since they can allow you to get a full copy of the file. Technically speaking, a combination of Google, HTTP/FTP and my webbrowser constitutes a P2P network. We may as well just ban the internet, and in this case it's not a straw-man argument but based off of the language of the bill.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[The Snowman]

Nader can't fill every seat in every state congress, or the federal congress, can he?

No, but there are enough people running for office that have morals and want to stand up for the people instead of businesses. However, they do not run under the "Republican" or "Democrat" banners, so people label them as political heretics and do not consider them seriously.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[aluser]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sought to ban illegal downloading on any state computers, including those owned by the state university systems.

Isn't illegal downloading already banned by definition?

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[radish]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sought to ban illegal downloading on any state computers, including those owned by the state university systems.

Hang on, surely if it's "illegal downloading" it's already banned. Or are they using some other definition of the word "illegal" of which I'm not aware?

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[saintp]

Silly Snowman! Cops are for the rich!

Didn't you realize that the state routinely acts as the private police of the wealthy at their behest? Why, a state that doesn't defend its business interests to the total exclusion of the interests of its citizens is hardly a state at all!

Hmm, you know, I might have something there....

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[miu]

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.

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeh, but if Bush bans one of the internets, what's to stop us from using all the others?

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[mausmalone]

Are you being serious or humorous? Virtually every single gun has at least one safety on it to prevent accidental discharges.

Well, the analogies can only go so far, but even still, I think the gun one is appropriate. A P2P software maker can be fined or jailed under this proposed law if their software does not take "reasonable" (very vague) precautions to ensure that users do not break the law with it. Note that this includes willful acts of copyright infringement.

Now apply the gun analogy. Say we have a law, and under that law a gun maker can be fined or jailed if the gun itself does not take "reasonable" precautions to ensure that users do not break the law willfully with it. Breaking the law willfully can include using a gun in the commission of an armed robbery, or even injuring or killing another person.

As we've all heard from the NRA, a gun is just a tool for self defense and hunting. Anybody who uses it for any other reason is completely misusing the product and is responsible for his or her own actions. No sarcasm intended here ... many guns are manufactured with exactly that purpose in mind, as opposed to assault weapons, which are designed specifically for human targets.

As an aside, I agree with the parent post that guns take reasonable precautions to prevent accidental discharges, and the manufacturer's advocacy of gun safety training is a wonderful thing, but it'll never be able to rid us of intentional misuse (a.k.a. murder). Should a gun manufacturer be liable for that? Only if they designed and marketed a gun specifically for killing other people (i.e. "Boss giving you a hard time? Buy a Winchester and shut him up for good!"). I believe the same for P2P authors at least. I don't believe they should be liable as long as they (a) educate the user on the appropriate use of their software, (b) don't market it specifically for the use of violating copyrights.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Rei]

I'll second this. I bittorrented 9 CDs of Debian a couple weeks ago; I never would have dreamed of doing a direct download of them. Waaay too slow.

Seriously, though, if this law passes, and someone wants to bring suit to stop it, they simply need to submit something like the following confession to get legal proceedings started:

"To:

I hereby confess, while not under duress, and in the presence of witnesses, that I developed a web browser. I took no 'reasonable care' to prevent my software from being used to commit crime - like all of the major web browsers in use, it can download and upload any file at all, no questions asked, to and from almost any web server on the internet. This is in violation of ."

(signatures follow)

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[MightyMartian]

Nader is nothing more than a self-aggrandizing sell out. Vote for your dog before you vote for Nader. At least with Bush and Kerry you knew that you were getting baldly arrogant and ambitious men who would sell themselves to anyone with a big checkbook. Nader's activities in the runup to the last US presidential election were despicable.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Rei]

Silly me - I used greater than and less than as brackets around the "insert text here" lines, so slashdot thought they were bad html tags and filtered them. It should have read:

"To: (Insert DA here)

I hereby confess, while not under duress, and in the presence of witnesses, that I developed a web browser. I took no 'reasonable care' to prevent my software from being used to commit crime - like all of the major web browsers in use, it can download and upload any file at all, no questions asked, to and from almost any web server on the internet. This is in violation of (insert state code ref here)."

(signatures follow)

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[virago81]

We also need to reform the direct election of Senators. The original way that Senators were selected was by the state legislatures, but that was changed by an amendment that made Senators directly elected by popular vote.

The result has been that Senators are beholden to Washington lobbyists (read: big-moneyed interests) for re-election funds.

If Senators were appointed by the legislatures, you'd see a dramatic decline in influence peddling in the Senate because the lobbyists would have to try to bribe every state legislator to get their way instead of having a one-stop-shop with the Senator.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[dillon_rinker]

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.)

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[learn fast]

By the way, this explains why public opinion polls are so often at odds with government policy. In a true representative democracy there should be a rough correlation between opinion polls and the way members of congress act. This is rarely the case nowadays.

This is not why opinion polls are at odds with government policy. Opinion polls are at odds with government policy because people don't inform themselves as to what the government is doing.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[silentbozo]

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.

This would effectively ban almost all firearms. Many rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. have at one point or another been used by SOME military, SOMEWHERE. Take for example the .50BMG rifles manufactured by Barrett (which became classified as an "assault weapon" as of Jan 1st 2005 in California, meaning that common Californians are effectively barred from posessing and using them). Those were civilian rifles first, military rifles second. The Mini-14, which is based on a proven military design, but is meant strictly for civilian markets, at one point had a select-fire/full-auto machine gun variant for sale to military.

Sniper rifles are essentially hunting rifles, pistols are pretty much the same between LEO, military, and private ownership, as are semi-auto shotguns. And, if you wanted to be devious about this, just commission some military group, somewhere, to start using arms that were previously not used by civilians, to finish classifying all possible firearms as "military firearms".

At this point, many of these firearms manufacturers (except for the ones that have government contracts, which will shortly become inflated in price) will go out of business, ammo manufacturers will consolidate, and people will then start bitching about how expensive ammo and how short the supply of replacement parts is for LEO/military firearms. Keep this in mind, it is the civilian market, which purchases millions of rounds of ammo, thousands of guns, and accessories to go with those guns, on a yearly basis, that keeps most of these businesses afloat. Aimpoints, accessory rails, custom barrels, spare magazines, etc. were manufactured in mass quantities in response to civilian markets, not for military markets (which tend to be one-time deals, and subject to political whimsy).

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[ChristTrekker]

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[cayenne8]

"The sale of military guns to civilians is essentially what I was driving at (sorry if my wording was unclear). I personally don't feel that anybody needs to have a "tool" that was specifically designed for efficiently killing large ammounts of human beings unless they are military or SWAT. When I say "assault weapons," I'm typically thinking of an AK-47 or an M-16. Maybe my definition doesn't fit with the publically accepted one, but I always figured the term "assault weapons" meant "weapons we use in an assault on an enemy base."

Well, there was a special on 60 Min. the other night about this guy in Kentucky I think...he designed and manufactures 50 cal. rifles. He sells them to the military, but, also to the public. He said that if he could not sell to the public, then he would be unable to stay in business, in which case...the military wouldn't have it either.

Now...with the tests they showed...I was amazed how powerful this weapon was....and someone could do some scary stuff with it from a long distance. On the other hand...I'd sure like to get one for target practice...blowing through metal targets at more than 400 yards would be blast!! (no pun intended).

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[dgatwood]

If you really want to send a message, I believe that the web servers for Mozilla and its variants are mostly in California. We should organize a national week of protest prior to the bill's passage in which all applications that could be construed as peer-to-peer by their definition (web browsers, IM clients, open source operating systems) all simultaneously replace their web pages with a blank, black page with the words:

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[byron036]

We need to increase the size of the House of Representatives ten-fold at least.

What a great way to absolutely stagnate the government. Getting the majority of 400 people takes months now, make that 4000 people and it might take years!

Think of it, by the time the lobbyists got finished buying the the next DCMA whole knew fields of industry could be explored. Digital technology will be passé!

Truth be told, there is nothing worse than an efficiently functioning government. It gets more bad done faster.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Buran]

Actually, yes it is the point. I'd guess that a large percentage of the videocassettes sold are blank and are used to record broadcast or cable television, yet the devices that permit this to be done (VCRs) were ruled to be legal because they also are used for playback of pre-recorded media that users purchase in stores.

What someone might do with something is none of the government's business. When you get into laws based on "might"s and "maybe"s is the time when you start tromping on peoples' rights. You have to prove wrongdoing in a specific case to deny someone of life, liberty, or property. And because a device might be used for something that is "okay" just as easily as it is used for something that is not, what right does the government have to presume guilt? That's not how US law works.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[Jeremi]

He said that if he could not sell to the public, then he would be unable to stay in business, in which case...the military wouldn't have it either.

I don't believe that for a second. If the military wanted his weapons, they could pay him enough to keep him in business. This is the same military that is single-handedly keeping the entire Iridium satellite-phone constellation in orbit, remember? The same one that drops $1 billion a week in Iraq...

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[dillon_rinker]

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.

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[WelcomeToTheFallout]

The gun should be able to detect human presence and not fire a round!

Excuse me for being naive, but isn't that the point of guns? (aside from hunting).

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[nutrock69]

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... :)

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[idlemachine]

The problem is that the number of congressman is capped at 435 since the year 1913. This means that each congressman serves about a half-million constituents. This was not the intent of the founders. Previous to the year 1913, as the population grew, more congressman were added.

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...

Re:Representatives of the People, Indeed

[idlemachine]

Opinion polls are at odds with government policy because people don't inform themselves as to what the government is doing.

Shouldn't "what the government is doing" be what the people want? I know it's the tail that wags the dog these days, but when did we just roll over and accept that?

What about Independents?!?!

[filmmaker]

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.

Re:What about Independents?!?!

[jjleard]

I'm sure they realize that people are producing content out there and distributing it via P2P. Do you think it's lost on them that eliminating P2P also eliminates some of their competition?

Re:What about Independents?!?!

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

You're obviously an "anti-property rights" hippy. Hollywood bought and paid for the property rights to film-making, and your little hippy indy films cause a direct loss of revenue on their part. Stay where you are, you are surrounded.

Re:What about Independents?!?!

[finkployd]

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

Re:What about Independents?!?!

[filmmaker]

The other thing that's not being addressed here is the fact that every single director in Hollywood was once an indepdendent or a student somewhere. The whole system needs an enema, and frankly, I see a paradigm change in film coming just as it came for music via Napster (and now legally iTunes, or Napster for that matter). What will happen, and Hollywood will hate this, is independents will have cheap, powerful tools to create film and an even playing field (somewhat) for distributing them online. You'd think Hollywood would love it though - talent scouting would be a simple as seeing what's popular online and making a phone call or emailing a director with an offer for big bucks.

WHat about a law...

[ooze]

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?

Re:WHat about a law...

[AviLazar]

How about a law that imprisons the manager of a bank when their office gets held up in a robbery.

Re:WHat about a law...

[Flyboy Connor]

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

P2P programs don't spread copyrighted works illegally, people spread copyrighted works illegally.

It's clear isn't it? People are the problem. Therefore people should be made illegal!

Just throw everyone in jail and the problem is solved.

Except lawyers, of course, since they don't belong to the class of people.

Apply the same to guns?

[sifi]

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...

Re:Apply the same to guns?

[Xpilot]

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...

Well, guns only kill people. P2P software is an enabler for the far, far more heinious crime of stealing money from the RIAA/MPAA.

Re:Apply the same to guns?

[paranode]

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'.

Re:Apply the same to guns?

[sgant]

Ok, not guns...protected by the constitution and all that (it's interesting that the same people that talk about how guns are our rights and is protected by the constitution are usually the same ones that want to "clean up TV and Radio"...yet that same constitution mentions free speech. In fact, it comes before "right to keep and bear arms". Just an observation...no, I don't want to take away your guns or your speech...but I digress)

Getting back to my point...what about knife manufactures? Shouldn't they be held liable if the thing they make is used in a crime? Baseball bat manufactures? What about that crow-bar?

I mean, if this law is worded so open like that, it's true..ANYTHING could fall under it. FTP software, Web browsers etc etc. Why are they wasting their time with this crap when it WILL get overturned by the courts.

Re:Apply the same to guns?

[Egonis]

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.

Re:Apply the same to guns?

[l0b0]

Does this imply that reasonable steps should be taken by gun manufactures to prevents guns from being used for crimes?

Nope, because just as with guns, if you outlaw P2P programs only criminals will have them. And you don't want the crackhead down the street having a bigger stack of DVDs than you do, right...?

Sorry, I had to.

Re:Apply the same to guns?

[hublan]

Well, guns only kill people

Guns don't kill people, rappers do.

Re:Apply the same to guns?

[tclark]

What if you use the gun to hold up a record company executive?

Re:Apply the same to guns?

[ari_j]

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.

Gun Makers

[hamlet2600]

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.

Re:Gun Makers

[Justin205]

You make a good point.

Why is copyright infringement starting to be considered (in the USA, at least) almost as bad or worse than murder? Murder is much worse than having hundreds or thousands of tracks of other people's music on your computer.

Re:Gun Makers

[MSZ]

Murder victims don't pay politicians that much. RIAA/MPAA on the other hand...

"You get what you paid for" is true for laws as much as it's true for everything else.

Free speech violation?

[chiph]

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.

all of you nerds should be going to law school

[hsmith]

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.

Re:all of you nerds should be going to law school

[rob_squared]

Give me liberty or...not.
-The New American War Cry

Re:all of you nerds should be going to law school

[SuperficialRhyme]

Do we blame gun makers for gun deaths? No, they are tools.

We do however blame our congressmen, and they too are tools.

Well then...

[Machine9]

...I suggest we make this law to apply to all of the following as well:

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.

Re:Well then...

[sepluv]

All technology and scientific knowledge (from the wheel to the PC) can be used for both good and evil. Some people use it for evil but most use it for good.

Should we now be made criminals for learning knowledge or thinking up ideas? This could only happen in the fascist US of A really; I'm so glad I don't live there.

Is the US

[log0n]

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.

Now at Sears....

[commo1]

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.

Copyleft Illegal?

[DenDave]

(e) As used in this section,"commercial recording or audiovisual
work" means a recording or audiovisual work whose copyright owner, or
assignee, authorized agent, or licensee, has made or intends to make
available for sale, rental, or for performance or exhibition to the
public under license, but does not include an excerpt consisting of
less than substantially all of a recording or audiovisual work. A
recording or audiovisual work may be commercial regardless of whether
the person who electronically disseminates it seeks commercial
advantage or private financial gain from that dissemination.

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)

Re:Copyleft Illegal?

[_undan]

Not quite. That doesn't mention anything about the copyright owner, only the person who distributes the work. The gist of it is that the work may fall under the "commercial" category, even if the person distributing it isn't doing it for any personal financial gain.

For someone to be sued, there still has to be an original copyright owner to file an actual claim; Copyleft and Creative Commons are still safe.

There's this thing called a browswer cache

[kfg]

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

Re:There's this thing called a browswer cache

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Your hippy rhetoric falls on deaf ears. We at the Starbucks Legislature (formerly California State Legislature) easily ignore those problems that would seem to invalidate our laws. Selective enforcement and a cultivated ignorance of technology, what more does a junior state senator need?

Why not guns ?

[pupeno]

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).

Reasonable care?

[rbarreira]

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?

Mum, mum, America's talking crap again!

[aug24]

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.

Re:Mum, mum, America's talking crap again!

[Maestro4k]

• 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..?

No, they're aware of that, the normal sequence of events goes like this:

1. Pass stupid law benefiting businesses and screwing over all citizens in some state to set a precedent.
2. Use precedent of law and lawmakers bought in Congress to pass federal version of the law.
3. Get said lawmakers and lobbyists to push administration to force other countries to draft same law in their countries or suffer from pulled trade/etc. with the US
4. Profit while the individuals of the world suffer because of your narrow-minded business views.

Re:Mum, mum, America's talking crap again!

[Singletoned]

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..?

He'd be right about the Aussies though, wouldn't he?

Re:Mum, mum, America's talking crap again!

[shark72]

The fact that your post has been modded 5, Insightful shows that many Slashdotters could use a basic civics lesson.

The bill was introduced by a California senator to be entered as a state law. Each state has its own set of laws, from everything as mundane as importing produce, to combatting spam. Each state generally has its own set of laws regarding things relating to cars, such as emissions, speed limits, and traffic laws.

To be perfectly clear:

• California has laws about pesticide use and produce. This does not mean that Californians are of the understanding that produce does not exist elsewhere in the world.
• California has anti-spam laws on the books -- some of the stricter in the nation, in fact. This does not imply that we harbor the notion that all spammers reside in California.
• In California, you can generally make a right turn on a red, and make a U turn if it's not specifically disallowed. However, we are aware that cars are manufactured, sold, and driven elsewhere besides in California.

To fight unfair laws, we must understand them. We must also make clear and coherent arguments if we are to defeat them. Statements such as " I take it this idiot senator believes all the world's coders live in the US, right?" are, sadly, not helpful.

And while the more intelligent and

[presarioD]

technologically informed ./ers mock at this new expression of hired corporate legislation, it slowly becomes the law of the land.

Another milestone, another passive moment in the life of the pathetic, gullible, ignorant, socially and politically inept creature called...

... Average American...

Sad, sad, sad, sad...

Nope.

[aristus]

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.

Al Gore to Prison?

[Martin71a]

Does that mean Al Gore will ultimately go to prison since he invented the whole internet in the first place?

Re:Would such a fine apply to Microsoft,?

[pembo13]

Last time I checked, MSN Messenger and Hyperterminal support p2p file transfers.

Guns? What about cigarette Manufacturers?

[WaZiX]

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!

Re:Guns? What about cigarette Manufacturers?

[kjamez]

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.

Re:Guns? What about cigarette Manufacturers?

[merdaccia]

You begin to understand, young one. Smoking is very harmful, but it is not harmful to the people lining law makers' pockets. It's quite profitable in fact. They therefore write laws to defend it. Same goes for guns. Little do these law makers realize how much tax money will be used hospitalizing and caring for smoking related illness and gun related injuries. Until it effects the law makers personally in a negative way, gun manufacturers and cigarette companies will keep thriving with the law on their side. When a senator's child kills himself with a gun, or when a family member is diagnosed with lung cancer, their tune will change. But since it has to happen to 450 of them for anything to come of it, nothing will come of it. Unfortunately, anything IT related doesn't have this luxury, because they simply don't understand the laws they're writing. And I'm not even being cynical.

Bill's commerical sponsorship

[malsdavis]

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.

Voting Choices

[SeanDuggan]

*tired smile* Sure, if you can condense your candidates down to a single issue, it's no problem voting for someone who supports your side, but has no chance of winning. After all, neither of the candidates who have a chance support your side, so why not toss away a vote? The rest of us have to deal with the fact that there's a number of issues involved and throwing away your vote on a third-party candidate also voids your chances of influencing other issues. And no, I don't buy the "if enough people wake up and vote for a third-party candidate..." line given that none of them are listed on a firm majority of state ballots, let alone the swing states.

*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.

Re:Voting Choices

[The Snowman]

I feel sorry for Americans though. I do feel as though you have your backs against the wall when it comes to elections. You are crying out for a coordinated mass lobbying for a 3rd. party candidate - only way to remove the boolean (unary!?) system you use now. You need allot more parties, you actually need complete reform ,maybe via a revolution or something.

Don't feel sorry for us. Most of us deserve the hell we're in.

Anyway, I think we need another revolution, peaceful or not. I truly think we are degenerating into the police state that we always bitched about in the Soviet Union. Our basic freedoms are intact, but the fringe freedoms are being eroded slowly but surely.

Emigration sounds really good right about now.

Freenet?

[Pan T. Hose]

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.

Re:Would such a fine apply to Microsoft,? Nope.

[Just Jeff]

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...

By this standard...

[deviantphil]

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!

This should help get the software industry out of

[mindlessrabble]

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.

Unconstitutionally Vague

[spiritraveller]

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.

Good idea

[Junior J. Junior III]

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.

Idiots Have Already Taken Over

[garwil]

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.

Loophole! Loophole!

[Stealth Potato]

"When a transaction is complete, the user has an identical copy of the file on his or her computer..."

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!" ;-)

Re:RTFB.

[ray-auch]

I read it. Did you read the "may also" ?

Doesn't look to me like redistribution is required, or that it is required to be enabled by the same software (trivial to avoid otherwise - use separate client & server).

Once an internet user has used a web browser to aquire "an identical copy of the file on his or her computer" they clearly may also diseminate the file to other users connected to the network - they may just email it.

Now look at usenet. Definitely a peer-to-peer file distribution system, by any standard. In over 20 years and who knows how many thousands of lines of nntp server code, no one has figured out a resonable way to prevent warez etc. trading on it.

After reading these posts...

[Daimando]

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.

From the "filesharers must provide email" guy

[morgue-ann]

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.

Re:RTFB.

[shark72]

Thank you for your astute post -- I'm glad you took the time to point that out. Many people simply don't do enough research before they post.

However, you wrote:

"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."

This is a bit like saying "gun safety laws mean that there's no easy way for a guy developing a bazooka in his back yard with a can of propane, a pipe and a tennis ball can add a trigger lock." Yes, regulating the P2P industry would make P2P apps harder to write -- and that's the point. The point of gun safety laws is to keep those backyard-built pipe bazookas off the market, while allowing the sale of products in which care has been exercised in the design (engineering trigger locks and other safety precautions) to be sold.

Similarly, P2P regulation would be an attempt to keep that 15-line Python program off the market, while giving protection to the developer who puts reasonable effort into preventing their application for being used for unauthorized purposes.

"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."

Companies that have developed viable screening/filtering/fingerprinting systems have already given demonstrations to legislators. While they are breakable (as is everything), this is what the legislators probably have in mind when they use phrases like "reasonable care."

"(not that I even agree the software authors or distributors should be shouldered with the blame of their users' actions...)"

I don't think so, either. The good thing about this bill is that if P2P vendors take reasonable care in the development phase -- hooking in some filtering technology, for example -- then they won't be.

Jail Time for Ford?

[irefay]

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...

I think these laws are unconstitutional

[rfc1394]

This bill, and one that was mentioned elsewhere in comments posted here, SB 1506, are, in effect, attempts by a state to criminalize alleged misuse of copyrighted materials, after the U.S. Congress has already ruled that it has declared itself the exclusive provider of any protections or rights over copyrightable materials. With the exception of most* sound recordings first fixed prior to February 15, 1972, states have no jurisdiction over the use, publication or distribution of copyrighted or copyrightable materials, or any intellectual property.

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.