New California Law Bans Anonymous Media File Sharing

An anonymous reader writes "It looks like California will soon be requiring emails to share files. The story from SF Gate has a few details as Ahnold goes on his signing spree in Sacramento. 'Aiding the industry that helped him gain worldwide fame, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation Tuesday aimed at discouraging online piracy by requiring anyone disseminating movies or music on the Internet to disclose their e-mail address.' Also he signed a bill to limit the sale of video games."

Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[ackthpt (218170)]

The signing was hailed by the bill's sponsor, the Motion Picture Association of America,

Well, if they sponsor it, it's gotta be good for the Governator and what's good for him is good for California. You got something to say about that, Girly-man?

the Motion Picture Association of America, which says it loses $3.5 billion annually to piracy

Hollywood accounting, ya gotta love it, babe.

Governor and video game star Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a measure aimed at curbing sales of violent video games to children. .. Some of Schwarzenegger's movies were spun off into video games that bear the governor's likeness - although they are not among the most violent under the industry's ratings system.

Sure is helpful to have connections to those who determine what violent is. He might want to consider a ban on showing caskets of returning service personnel from Iraq, as that could upset impressionable television viewers.

Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[NoMoreNicksLeft (516230)]

the Motion Picture Association of America, which says it loses $3.5 billion annually to piracy

Hollywood accounting, ya gotta love it, babe.


Yeh, my favorite was that Forest Gump made no profit whatsoever. At least for the purposes of royalties to the original author. Haha.

Wonder what this means for my own anonymous network... we're finally starting to see some geometric growth. Figures, eh?

Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[Fred_A (10934)]

I stopped buying his games after Kindergarden Cop. That game was way to difficult, those kids were really too small to hit.

And it took ages to get the flamethrower, and you had to make a recitation to kill the boss on level 2, and colour pictures without going over the sides. And you had to hold hands when you crossed the street to get ammo at the gun shop.
Anyway it sucked.

Was he not paying attention?

[UID1000000 (768677)]

I don't get it? Either he doesn't get it either or he wasn't paying attention while he was signing these bills. ...Anyone think he was busy pumping?

sure, he can have my email address

[Indy1 (99447)]

its either [e-mail]

or

[e-mail] (or was it .com ?:) )

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[flyboy974 (624054)]

Bill, could you please write me back. I would like to talk with you about your quest to rule the world.

Your bud, [e-mail]

P.S. - There can be only one.

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[DudemanX (44606)]

Dad, I always knew that you would sell out one day.

Your Son, [e-mail]

New Poll Idea

[mblase (200735)]

Email address used for file sharing?

* [e-mail]
* [e-mail]
* [e-mail]
* [e-mail]
* [e-mail]

Re:New Poll Idea

[gfody (514448)]

[e-mail]

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[Carnildo (712617)]

root@localhost

And the best part is, it really works, unlike those fake addresses everyone else is suggesting!

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[Alsee (515537)]

Actually the law is far worse than that. It does not seem like anyone has yet posted the fact that the actual text of the law requires not only an e-mail address, but requires you to include your TRUE NAME AND ADDRESS. Sigh. Fucking stupid law, pardon the french.

-

HA!

[Malicious (567158)]

[e-mail]
[e-mail]
[e-mail]

Need I continue?

Re:HA!

[jrumney (197329)]

Yeah, like Microsoft is going to protect your anonimity when the MPAA comes knocking. Try: [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail]

What's with these laws?

[strictfoo (805322)]

I mean, I really really don't it. It's already illegal share movies. Now in order for them to allow me to commit an illegal act I have to share my email address?

What's next: "Before you rob a store you must inform the local police of your intentions"?

Re:What's with these laws?

[whoever57 (658626)]

I mean, I really really don't it. It's already illegal share movies. Now in order for them to allow me to commit an illegal act I have to share my email address?

According to my understanding, even if you have permission to share the file, you still have to provide an address.

that

[Trepidity (597)]

Is probably not constitutional. You can't stop a willing group of participants from engaging in anonymous conversation with each other.

Re:that

[whoever57 (658626)]

Maybe it is not constitutional, but check out the actual text for yourself. [ca.gov] It looks pretty clear to me that there is no exception for files that you have permission to trade.

Re:that

[BitterOak (537666)]

Is probably not constitutional.

It's probably not constitutional whether you have permission to share the file or not. If you are violating copyright by sharing the file, then there is a serious Fifth Amendment issue protecting you from begin compelled to incriminate yourself, by providing your e-mail address, for instance.

If you are not violating copyright by sharing the file (if you have permission from the copyright holder, or are the copyright holder, for instance, or if the file is public domain) then surely there are First Amendment problems in banning certain types of communication without including compelled speech (your e-mail address.)

Either way, I don't see how this law could withstand constitutional scrutiny.

RTFB

[originalhack (142366)]

If you RTFB [ca.gov], it is clear the the work must be commercial and you must not have a license to distribute it, otherwise this does not apply.

excerpt....

SECTION 1. Section 653aa is added to the Penal Code, to read:
653aa. (a) Any person, except a minor, who is located in
California, who, knowing that a particular recording or audiovisual
work is commercial, knowingly electronically disseminates all or
substantially all of that commercial recording or audiovisual work to
more than 10 other people without disclosing his or her e-mail
address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work is
punishable by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500), imprisonment in a county jail for a period not exceeding
one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Any minor who violates subdivision (a) is punishable by a fine
not exceeding two hundred fifty dollars ($250). Any minor who
commits a third or subsequent violation of subdivision (a) is
punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000),
imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or
by both that imprisonment and fine.
(c) Subdivisions (a) and (b) do not apply:
(1) To a person who electronically disseminates a commercial
recording or audiovisual work to his or her immediate family, or
within his or her personal network, defined as a restricted access
network controlled by and accessible to only that person or people in
his or her immediate household.
(2) If the copyright owner, or a person acting under the authority
of the copyright owner, of a commercial recording or audiovisual
work has explicitly given permission for all or substantially all of
that recording or audiovisual work to be freely disseminated
electronically by or to anyone without limitation.
(3) To a person who has been licensed either by the copyright
owner or a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner
to disseminate electronically all or substantially all of a
commercial audiovisual work or recording.

Re:What's with these laws?

[jdunn14 (455930)]

What's next? How about, "Before you sell that pot you need to put a tax stamp on it." Love that law, and it's been on the books since 1937. Search for the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Or even better, here's a link: http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/hemp/taxact/mj taxact.htm [druglibrary.org]
Legislators work in mysterious/interesting ways.

Re:What's with these laws?

[Bastian (66383)]

The idea is that if take one act and turn it into several crimes by breaking the act into little pieces and making each of those illegal (in addition to the primary act), you will be able to lock someobody up for a very long time if they are caught committing even a very minor offense. This is supposed to act as a deterrent.

I'm sure even a kindergartener could find several logical flaws and unfounded assumptions inherent in this line of thinking, and anyone old enough to have research skills could also find a huge stack of numbers that also show that this is silly. Still, it is the basis for a large percentage of the USA's legal opus, including some laws that most people seem to really like (hate crimes, for example).

(completely unrelated, I swear)Fun Fact: Did you know the USA has a larger percentage of its population in prison than any other democracy (and most other authorotarian states) in the world?

Hello 5th amendment?

[babybird (791025)]

What ever happened to a person's constitutionally protected right not to incriminate themselves? I'm pretty sure such a law would be blatantly unconstitutional.

Re:What's with these laws?

[GimmeFuel (589906)]

Precisely. Stacking charges. This allows the prosecutor's to have 12 charges against you intsead of one. They can then plea bargain down to just one or two charges if you plead guilty. This means prosecutors get their 90%+ conviction records they want if they want to become DA or something, and a lot of innocent people go to jail because they take the plea bargain rather than go through a costly trial at the risk of even longer jail time.

Violation of rights?

[uchi (534979)]

Is it just me, or is it a violation of your rights(as an American)? I can think of situations where I could be sharing perfectly legal media, and would not want my email address/identity tied to it. For example, if I produced a documentary about how bad the company I work for is, I should be able to disperse that to those who please. There would most definitely be reprecussions if it was found out who made it, and this bill would just make it all the easier.

Re:Violation of rights?

[geomon (78680)]

You have no constitutional right to anonymity.

Really?

You know what slippery slope we're on? The one that'll kill us? The one were everyone constantly get 1 more right and 1 less responsibility.

You have a poor understanding of the Constitution.

The government doesn't hand out rights; we have intrinsic rights as humans and citizens. The Constitution enumerates those rights we (the People) grant to the government , not the other way around.

Re:Violation of rights?

[Smallpond (221300)]

Close. Actually the states can pass any law they want restricting your rights EXCEPT those that are reserved by the constitution in the Bill of Rights. So unless I missed the article on filesharing, the constitution doesn't have any provisions covering providing email addresses.

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

That explains why...

[kevman42 (681617)]

I've seen a lot more files from this user: [e-mail]

Information wants to be free

[by Anonymous Coward]

as in beer.

Does Californica not realize that the Internet will treat this as damage, and route around it? You can't make your tiny part of the Internet have different rules than the rest of the Internet. It just doesn't work. Unenforceable.

Don't make it sound so ominous...

[The-Bus (138060)]

Governor and video game star Arnold Schwarzenegger has signed a measure aimed at curbing sales of violent video games to children. AB 1793, by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, requires stores to post signs and offer brochures about the industry's game-rating system.

I doubt that even accomplishes anything. But if it does what it is intended to do, inform parents/consumers, more power to them. Parents should be aware when they are buying San Andreas for their kid.

As far as the email is concerned? Ludicrously unenforceable, so I'm not paying attention to it.

Apple?

[CanSpice (300894)]

What email address does Apple get to use? Or Real? Or Microsoft?

You forgot the most important bill

[antifoidulus (807088)]

he signed a law that finally made necrophilia a crime in California. Who cares about file sharing...
When the casket is a 'rockin
Don't come a 'knockin

Re:We noticed, but there's a good question.

[csteinle (68146)]

Beacuse nobody ever specifically banned it?

There's a possible apocryphal tale that when the crime of buggery (which was used as the legal term) was introduced in Victorian Britain, Queen Victoria vetoed a similar law banning lesbian sexual acts as she refused to believe they were possible.

Re:We noticed, but there's a good question.

[dze (89612)]

Queen Victoria vetoed a similar law banning lesbian sexual acts as she refused to believe they were possible.

I believe they are impossible too. I demand that you show me the evidence!

Text of the bill

[the_demiurge (26115)]

You can read the text of the filesharing bill (now law) at http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_1501-1550/s b_1506_bill_20040823_enrolled.html [ca.gov]

What about my own music or video?

[dmeranda (120061)]

This seems like it's making the same old assumptions. That *if* it's music or video, then the copyright *must* be owned by RIAA/MPAA. This is all about control, not copyrights.

If I own the copyright (say because I produced it), or I have the permission of the copyright owner (which may be, gasp, somebody besides the **AA); then WHY in the world can't I do with it what I want? I certainly can give somebody a copy of a book in secrety; or even leave a copy of a newspaper on my chair when I'm done reading it (which is anonymous distribution).

Oh, and what about PUBLIC DOMAIN media files?

See, this whole thing still seems to be the big media industries trying to shut out independent artisits and producers of content. The whole piracy thing is just a smokescreen; the excuse. What they really want is to make it illegal or impossible for anybody besides them to "traffic" in media.

Newspaper on seat?

[HPNpilot (735362)]

You can't necessarily leave your newspaper on the seat when you're done. At least not if the newspaper companies have a say.

Metro-North railroad (the commuter lines into NYC) now consider leaving a paper on your seat as "littering" and are talking about fines and revocation of the monthly passes of violators. When you get to Grand Central station there are specially designed bins to throw your used paper into. They are locked and were supplied by the New York Times so you cannot reach in and get a used paper. And if you somehow do, the transit police are instructed to treat it as theft and arrest you.

Of course you can *hand* the paper to someone, they don't seem to have that one covered (yet).

No problem!

[Just Some Guy (3352)]

My email address? A real one, even? No problem! Get'cher red hot MP3s from your friendly local root@localhost! I might even reply to emails sent to that address, for a particularly appropriately-scoped definition of "localhost".

Stupid law

[Capt'n Hector (650760)]

Anything I make (or anything anyone else makes) is automatically copyrighted by the person or organization that made it. Does this mean I can't post to /. without showing my email, because that would be sharing copyrighted media? Is the only legal anonymous transfer one that only is composed of public domain works? Ug... good thing this isn't anywhere near enforcable.

So???

[El (94934)]

So now to distribute movies, you simply have to create a hotmail account, even though you never have to actually log in and check your mail? Just wait 30 days, Microsoft automatically deletes any Cease and Desist letters, and you're home free! I'm not quite clear on what this law accomplishes...

Lots of questions

[LS (57954)]

* Who is the email provided to?
* How is the email to be provided?
* Is this only for legal files haring? (I would assume so)
* How are email addresses verified?
* If the file sharing app has to provide a way to advertise an email, does this make app incapable of this illegal?
* Are FTP and websites affected by this law?
* What if I don't have an email address?
* What if my address is with Yahoo? Will my information be required to be given to lawyers by Yahoo or whomever my ISP is?
* How did this law get passed?

LS

Video Games

[adamjone (412980)]

Also he signed a bill to limit the sale of video games.

Ummm... no, that's not at all what he did. Talk about blowing things out of proportion. Directly from the article:

AB 1793, by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, requires stores to post signs and offer brochures about the industry's game-rating system.

The bill only requires that video game retailers provide information on the rating system. It in no way inhibits the sale of any game to anyone. In fact, he indicated that he would strike down any bill that included any such ban.

Utter bollocks

[ectoraige (123390)]

If your email address is with a non-US entity, the DoJ can go swivel.

Therefore, if anybody wanst a prestigous [e-mail] .helgrim.com email address, provided free here in Ireland, contact me through my site.

I'd love to see a video from the courtroom as the charges are read...

Re:It will never survive.

[Izago909 (637084)]

"I am willing to bet it will be struck down as inhibiting legitimate anonymous free speech."

Since when does freedom of speach extend to the illigal distribution of copywritten movies over the internet? Since that is the only instance when this law can take effect I realy dont see what everyone is so worked up over. Hell, there is even an exception clause for sending movies to your firends and family.

That might be a good rebuttal, except this law does not specifically discriminate between people sharing copyrighted media, and media which can be freely copied (public domain, creative commons, authors consent, etc).

Re:It will never survive.

[Skjellifetti (561341)]

The story does not say that the law is restricted to sharing of copyrighted materials only. Suppose someone writes a political paraody song about their boss that they want to diseminate anonymously. This law could make the anonymous sharing of such material a crime. If you have info that the law applies only to copyrighted material, then show us. The story did not have enough info to answer that either way.

Re:It will never survive.

[Alsee (515537)]

Since when does freedom of speach extend to the illigal distribution of copywritten movies over the internet?

Since when does this law have ANYTHING to do with copyright infringment?

And if it did, it would be the stupidest law I've ever heard of. It would have to say you are free to share non-infringing files however you like, but if you are already commiting a FELONY sharing infringing files then we are also going to tack on a petty misdemeanor unless you post your e-mail address. I've seen some stupid laws, but that would be colossally stupid.

No, it sounds like this law is only modestly stupid and requires ANYONE who shares any music or video file to supply an e-mail address. And yes, it quite likely can get struck down on constitutional grounds as it would apply to someone distributing POLITICAL COMMENTARY music and video, such as Jib-Jab's My-Land parody. You do indeed have a highly protected right to ANONYMOUS political speech.

Just because a law is uintended to (indirectly) target copyright infringment does not give it a free pass on the First Amendment when the law infringes the right to anonymous political speech.

Jeez, we already have insane levels of criminality for copyright infringment itself (you can go to prison for 5 years for non-commercial copyright infringment/trade of a single song). What the hell is up with umpteen other laws all making PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE AND NON-INFRINGING ACTIVITIES AND PRODUCTS INTO CRIMES?!?! The DMCA, the AHRA, the broadcast flag, and now this law. All of which also smack down innocent and non-infringing people.

I have a question, do you support the DMCRA and/or BALANCE act? All they do is fix the DMCA by de-criminalizing INNOCENT and NON-INFRINGING use. If you do not support the DMCRA and/or BALANCE act then I ask how you justify the DMCA stating that innocent and non-infringing people are liable to 5 or 10 years in prision?

-

Re:It will never survive.

[jedidiah (1196)]

video != copyrighted video
music != copyrighted music

The law is overbroad in assuming that any transmission is going to be an illegal one. The works in question could be your own works or those where the owner has given explicit permission for redistribution.

This law would also prevent the anonymous distribution of audio and video with political content. It would make illegal the multimedia equivalent of the Federalist Papers.

NO, this is not just about music piracy.

Re:It will never survive.

[EzInKy (115248)]

There's no right to anonymous free speech -- one of the important issues regarding free speech is the responsibility for what you say.

According to the Supreme Court [wired.com] there is.

If you can find a law that protects your anonymity as a right, you're really on to something.

Here is Justice Steven's opinion:

"Justice Steven's opinion for the Court note that arguments favoring the ratification of the Constitution advanced in the Federalist Papers were published under fictitious names. Justice Stevens said "quite apart from any threat of persecution, an advocate may believe her ideas will be more persuasive if her readers are unaware of her identity. Anonymity thereby provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge her message simply because they do not like its proponent." Stevens concluded "Under our Constitution, anonymous pamphleteering is not a pernicious, fraudulent practice, but an honorable tradition of advocacy and of dissent. Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority."

Re:NO.

[by Anonymous Coward]

But hotmail would have your IP address for when you first created the account. Oh duh! You'd use an Internet cafe.

Re:NO.

[tomhudson (43916)]

From the article:

California file sharers who trade songs or films without providing an e- mail address will be guilty of a misdemeanor

Doesn't say WHO's email address you need to give - so give this one:[e-mail], or [e-mail].

There's also this:

Last week he signed an executive order prohibiting state employees from using <b>software designed for file sharing</b>.

Guess that means no more networked windows boxes for california employees, since Windows can share files with a right-click. And no more Outlook, because THAT can share files too, even when you don't want to.

Come to think of it, a ban on file-sharing software pretty much kills all email, all cd-burning programs, etc.

I guess this is why people consider Arnie to be funniest when he's trying to be serious.

Re:NO.

[visgoth (613861)]

Computers may as well be flat out banned then. Any operating system that allows saving of files is "file sharing software". A user could save to a device, and then connect the device to another computer. OMG, filesharing!!!