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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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?!?!

[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

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?

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?

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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...

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!" ;-)