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

[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

[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.

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: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.

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: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?

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...

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: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.

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!