New California Law Bans Anonymous Media File Sharing 679
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."
It will never survive. (Score:3, Insightful)
Internet vs Arnold (Score:2, Insightful)
Violation of rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
Information wants to be free (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
How does this change anything? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's with these laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's next: "Before you rob a store you must inform the local police of your intentions"?
Just like it's illegal to not report profits from illegal activities to the IRS. It gives them more ammo to use against you. If they can't prove one thing, they have something else to go after you for.
What about my own music or video? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What is the point of this, really? (Score:3, Insightful)
I can appreciate trying to cut back on massive copyright infringement, but this.... this is just bullshit. Whoever at the MPAA/RIAA paid for this should be fired for wasting their employers' money. No one who is breaking the law and "causing them to lose money" is going to follow this law. Well maybe some, the kind that would have probably been caught anyway.
If it be true that California leads the way for our country, then Arnold has ushered in a new wave of stupidity into American politics. Doesn't he have better things to do, that not coincidentally would help these lobby groups' retainers more, like cut down the overall size of the CA state government, streamline its laws, eliminate red tape, cut taxes, cut expenditures and find innovative ways to save money?
Here's a novel idea for the RIAA/MPAA/BSA: instead of wasting your money on bullshit like this, lobby for tax and spending cuts. Get rid of the income tax, when the people aren't taxed at 20-50%, they have discressionary income out their asses and that's when people buy your products.
In other words, stop subsidizing the Republicrats and send the check to Reason and the Libertarian Party.
Re:NO. (Score:3, Insightful)
My sentiments exactly. This law is almost impossible to enforce. Trying to chase down people who break this law will cost the state millions. So what the point? Sounds like Arnold kowtowing to the Industry.
I didn't vote for the man, but I had to admit a while back that he was doing a decent job. Now this...
that (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid law (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of questions (Score:5, Insightful)
* 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
Re:Violation of rights? (Score:5, Insightful)
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:What's with these laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hello 5th amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:NO. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's with these laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
According to my understanding, even if you have permission to share the file, you still have to provide an address.
Which is important - because everybody knows email addresses are a great authoritative identity source...
Should be about as effective as having spammers sign their email address.
Re:It will never survive. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It will never survive. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Liberals = Idiots (Score:3, Insightful)
I dont think the film industry needs more money to make better films. For the past 20 years movies coming out of hollywood have been on a steady slope downwards, about 98% of the good movies that have come out in the past few years have not come from LA. If sharing movies over the internet ends up causing the demise of the over bloated film industry, i say good riddance.
God forbid movies go back to being artistic instead of the two hour long commercials that they are now.
RTFB (Score:2, Insightful)
1.Provides that any person, except a minor, located in California who, knowing that a particular recording or audiovisual work is commercial, knowingly electronically disseminates all or substantially all of that recording or work without disclosing his/her e-mail address and the title of the recording or work, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of up to $2,500 and up to a year in county jail.
So what's the problem? If it's legit why would you care?
2. Provides that if a minor violates the above provision, he/she shall be punished by a fine not to exceed $250. Any minor who commits a third or subsequent violation is punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000, imprisonment in the county jail for up to one year, or both the fine and imprisonment.
It still is up to the DA to choose to prosecute. I see no problem.
3. Provides that upon conviction for a violation of this section, in addition to the penalty prescribed, the court shall order the permanent deletion or destruction of any electronic file containing a commercial recording or audiovisual work, the dissemination of which was the basis of the violation. The provisions do not apply to the copyright owner or to a person acting under the authority of the copyright owner.
Duh.
4. Does not apply to a person who electronically disseminates a commercial recording or audiovisual work (a) to his/her immediate family or within a network accessible only to individuals in that person's immediate household, or (b) where the copyright owner has "given permission [for the] work to be freely disseminated electronically by or to anyone without limitation."
So this doesn't apply if the author gives you permission. Big deal AND provides protection for multiple PCs in a house. Sounds good so far.
5. Defines "audiovisual work" as an electronic or physical embodiment of motion pictures, television programs, video or computer games, or other audiovisual presentations that consist of related images that are intrinsically intended to be shown by the use of machines or devices.
Blah Blah definitions here...
6. Defines "commercial recording or audiovisual work" as a recording or audiovisual work that the copyright owner has made or intends to make available for sale, rental, or for performance or exhibition to the public.
This seems reasonable.
7. Provides that a recording or audiovisual work may be commercial regardless of whether the disseminator seeks commercial advantage or private financial gain.
Protects unreleased works. Just because I don't plan on selling that sex video does give you the right to distribute it.
8. Defines electronic dissemination as initiating a transmission of, making available, or otherwise offering, a commercial recording or audiovisual work for distribution on the Internet or other digital network.
Key word INITIATING. A passive distributor (ISP, P2P "middle man", etc.) is protected. Only the active sender is a target.
9. Defines "e-mail address" as a valid e-mail address, or the valid e-mail address of the holder of the account from which the dissemination took place.
Again if it's legit this is simply providing a point of contact so questions can be asked. Doesn't have to be an address with your name. root@provider.com would work just fine.
If you read the bills and quit listening to others you find out these laws are as "far out" as they seem. CBS taught us that just because the news says A doesn't mean A is true. Just because the
Re:that (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Violation of rights? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:What's with these laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
You mean if I make a movie or tape a song by myself it's illegal for me to share it?
What if the work is under a creative commons license?
Because those are two of the situations this bill will affect.
FoS (Score:2, Insightful)
The sad thing is paying the governor and legislatures salaries while they craft this trash then pass it, then have the EFF or some schmuck spend to fight it and burn all that time. Remember these things next election, which is right around the corner (legislature).
What next, screening of Intrastate email by the RIAA and MPAA? I can't send a personal mp3 or mpeg to a friend without signing it?
Re:HA! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Violation of rights? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So??? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd be curious to know more about. . . (Score:3, Insightful)
I noticed that the article highlighted a couple of rather reasonable-sounding ones, and presented them in a positive light. Hmm.
I wonder about the other 80 or so bills which are now law. Does anybody know?
Basically, after cutting a deal with Enron [alternet.org] before his election, I think it is highly unlikely that Arnold is a man with anybody's interests other than his own at heart. --And all in the wake of the CA energy scandal, (which the capitalists defended from the get-go; Nice job guys! Enron is the logical end result of greed-based policy. Did you learn anything?)
If Bush hasn't been crowned "Dictator For Life" by 2008, then I'll be pretty spooked about Arnold taking the throne.
-FL
Interesting minor point in article (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmmm, I would love to see how that one is worded. Since the internet only really works based off file sharing, That ban ought to include most windows OSes, most Linux Distros, software such as Mozilla, Netscape Navigator, IE, IIS, Apache and even stupid junk like MSN Messenger, ICQ, and a few MILLION other programs.
(standard rant about stupid politicians)
OK, now that that is out of the way, here is a way to make an example of Ah-nuld's silly legislation: Look up the exact wording of the legislation. Chances are they tried to describe the programs rather than explicitly name them. Then sue the state because state agency X,Y, and Z are using software that falls under the law. After a few rounds of write ups in the 'oddly enough' section of Reuters and court filings, the law will get voted off the books. (I'm sorry mr Swartzheneckher, but the DMV is ENTIRELY shut down by your law. The voters aren't too happy, either...)
Re:It will never survive. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NO. (Score:4, Insightful)
I'd have more confidence in the intelligence of the RIAA/MPAA than the intelligence of the government. This isnt a feel good situation for the entertainment industry that we should just blow off as irrelevant just because it looks meaningless on the surface.
This in fact has a lot of meaning, it means the industry has yet another foot hold in our legal system. Once a law has made it into the system, it's damn hard to get it out. You watch, in a year, they'll be lobbying that it's not effective enough, and it will be even easier to add new rules to whats already there second time around.
This is a common strategy, you see it all over the place. Take away a little freedom, get people used to it, then take a little more.
And whats especially disturbing are the heavy ties with the entertainment industy that Mr. Schwartznegger has, it's pretty obvious who he's looking out for.
Windows Samba Shares (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It will never survive. (Score:2, Insightful)
Since the First Amendment listed no exceptions or quilifications. Try reading it! Just because the American Judiciary is too stupid/corrupt to read it
doesn't mean you can't.
Re:What's with these laws? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:sure, he can have my email address (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle (Score:3, Insightful)
He might want to consier worrying about illegal immigrants crossing his states borders. All of this worry about filesharing or if a child is playing a violent video game while 600,000 illegal immigrants come into the US a year, mostly into California. How hard is it for 10 to 20 terrorists to get in with that group of 600,000?
California and our government needs to get their priorities straight. Don't worry about what Video games kids are playing, that is a parents job. Instead, worry about securing the border, getting citizenship for the hard working Mexicans that want to come here to live the American dream and Kick out the Criminals, Terrorists, and other assorted thugs.
Re:RTFB (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This bill is completely illogical. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It will never survive. (Score:3, Insightful)
My friend Bob is an indi singer. He shows me a song and says "hey, feel free to distribute it wherever you want, I want to get my name out dude." I am forced to provide my e-mail address, name and home address. Sorry, I don't like providing any of that info except when I want too. I think Bob's song is shit so I don't want my home address associated on my website.
This is all a moot point if it isn't commercial. Perhaps at the end of the song he has an advertisement by a company. That's commercial according to the dictionary. He plans to put it on his CD and sell it, that causes the copyrighted work to be commercial.
Notice I haven't mentioned anything illegal. I haven't even mentioned a p2p network. But I'm still affected. (Thankfully I don't like Bob anymore so I'd tell him to fuck off).
When we are all criminals... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle (Score:2, Insightful)
Catching dirt-poor people trying to sneak over the border is one thing. Trying to catch well funded people is another. You're not going to see terrorists trying to sneak in from Mexico, as they're more likely to drive across the border from Canada or sail into a harbor in Florida. The hardest part of catching bad men is when they haven't done anything already to be identified for.
That said, do you enjoy inexpensive lettuce, strawberries, kiwi fruit, cabbage, brussels sprouts, artichokes, melons, garlic, etc.? Someone's got to pick them and I don't see any white-european faces out there in those fields.
Re:NO. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:NO. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle (Score:2, Insightful)
If you don't believe me, a recent study showed that Walmart *COSTS* the state of california 80 million a year in services consumed by walmart employees (welfare, medical care for uninsured, etc). And walmart pays a HELL of a lot better then picking fruit or day labor.
So basically, tax payers are subsidizing the cost of labor for companies which employ illegal aliens...
And the crux of the situation is it sucks all around. The aliens are trying to escape a horrible situation in mexico, but they're making a horrible situation here. Most Californians feel at this point that we've already been *WAY* too generous and its time to look out for ourselves.