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]

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

[stratjakt]

Governor and video game star Arnold Schwarzenegger

Video game star? What video game was he in besides T2: Arcade?

Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[pizzaman100]

He was in a number of pinball games, and we know how violent those are. ;)

TERMINATOR 2 [ipdb.org]

TERMINATOR 3 [ipdb.org]

Last Action Hero [ipdb.org]

Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[Fred_A]

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.

Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

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

[NoMoreNicksLeft]

Actually, both groups are going after all sorts of religions. For instance, they "lobbied" (no idea what word to use here, bribed?) Sunni Islam into declaring it a sin to infringe intellectual property less than a year ago.

Personally I'd find it hilarious, if it wasn't so serious... how far can they go? 200 years after the death of the author, life in prison for breaking a directv card?

Re:Paying Back Favors and Pot Whitwashes Kettle

[Slime-dogg]

Sunni Islam into declaring

Didn't that used to be Cat Stevens? Hmm. It was probably a favor that he owed the RIAA.

Was he not paying attention?

[UID1000000]

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]

its either [e-mail]

or

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

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[flyboy974]

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]

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

Your Son, [e-mail]

New Poll Idea

[mblase]

Email address used for file sharing?

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

Re:New Poll Idea

[gfody]

[e-mail]

Re:New Poll Idea

[Telecommando]

[e-mail]

It's a valid email address and yes, I read it from time to time. If Arnold wants to send me some mail at that address there's a chance I'll read it, albeit a slim chance.

Re:sure, he can have my email address

[Carnildo]

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]

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.

-

Waitaminute

[aussie_a]

it doesn't say "true name and address" in a form accessible to other people. So therefore you can encrypt your name and address :)

HA!

[Malicious]

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

Need I continue?

Re:HA!

[jrumney]

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

It will never survive.

[Class Act Dynamo]

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

Re:It will never survive.

[Izago909]

"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]

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]

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]

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.

[HiThere]

Actually, for the last several decades the right to anonymous free speech has been acknowledged as a constitutional right. Unfortunately, what is a right is determined by the Supreme Court, and how expensive (and dangerous) it is to get a hearing in the Supreme Court is determined by the lower court system. And the court system is so overcrowded there isn't room for all the good cases. (Even when there was, the Supreme Court would frequently refuse to hear an appeal, because they didn't want to tackle th

Re:It will never survive.

[EzInKy]

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."

What's with these laws?

[strictfoo]

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]

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]

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

Re:that

[whoever57]

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]

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.

Suggestion, albeit IANAL,

[einhverfr]

Not sure about the fifth ammendment ramifications. It seems that the counter argument is that this is simply requiring people who presumably have permission to identify themselves so that they can better go after those who do not have permission.

Now, the first ammendment aspect may be more interesting. I propose that we all create political speaches as media files and in them explicitly state that we only give permission for them to be distributed, publically exhibited, etc. anonymously, and that no one is allowed to *both* distribute the content and comply with this law. Then we should send them around P2P networks with catchy titles like "California Dreaming--- RIAA Dream On" etc. Note only the copyright holder would have permission to email them to political figures, or we could make an exception for that in the license :-)

Such speech would have clear political value and would not contain the unprotected practical elements which cause problems for DeCSS cases. In the end one might have a case regarding whether one can legally curtail political discourse using such laws. Also if such laws cannot curtail political discourse, then they might not be able to curtail other things as well.

As an aside, we could also set the text ofthe law to music and then forbid anyone to distribute it in such a way that complies with the law :-)

Re:What's with these laws?

[dslbrian]

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.

RTFB

[originalhack]

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?

[Neil Blender]

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"?

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.

Re:What's with these laws?

[GimmeFuel]

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.

Re:What's with these laws?

[jdunn14]

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.

Obsolete Law

[WiseWeasel]

That law is no longer applicable thanks to the 1976 "Controlled Substances Act", or something of the sort. Now it's just plain illegal, even if states were to issue tax stamps (as Arizona used to do).

Re:What's with these laws?

[Bastian]

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]

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?

[quantaman]

I mean, I really really don't it. It's already illegal share movies.

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.

Ummm..you are spreading false info

[nurb432]

It is NOT illegal to share movies and music..

Its illegal to share media files that are prohibited from distribution by their ( copyright ) license holders.

Not all media files have this restriction. Many license holders DO permit free re-distribution of their ( copyrighted ) files.

You are just spreading the same set of lies the industries push to confuse people. Perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not. Only you can answer that question.

Re:What's with these laws?

[chris_mahan]

What you should do is not grow it, pay the tax, have them come arrest you for growing it, and you let your lawyers kill them.

That will teach them.

If they ask you why you paid the Pot Tax, you said you were confused by the wording of the law and you wanted to make sure that you were not breaking the law, so just to be on the safe side, you sent it in.

Then file for a refund.

Re:What's with these laws?

[scotch]

This plan makes sense if you're stoned.

Hello Russian Free Email Account

[Proc6]

Time to sign up for an @something.ru or the like.

Violation of rights?

[uchi]

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]

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]

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.

Re:Violation of rights?

[Smallpond]

Yeah. That's why amendment X is called the People's Rights amendment and not the State's Rights amendment. Oh wait...

If you fell for that in Gov. class, then I have a motion picture to sell you. Read it again. Its up to the state constitutions how they divvy up rights with the people.

If you look at the California constitution, article I sets forth the rights of the people. Its called DECLARATION OF RIGHTS.

Re:Violation of rights?

[Izago909]

Check the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights. Just because privacy isn't spelled out in the constitution doesn't mean that we don't have a right to it. The founding fathers had a fear that in the time following the ratification, an imperialistic federal government would limit personal freedoms that weren't specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Since they didn't have the ability see into the future and predict evolving social concerns, they left in a clause saying that people have more ri

That explains why...

[kevman42]

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

Information wants to be free

[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.

Just try routing around california...

[Jim McCoy]

Does Californica not realize that the Internet will treat this as damage, and route around it?

Considering the fact that until recently the majority of packets on the internet either originated or terminated in California, I sincerly invite you to try routing around CA.

The benefit of running the state that contains Silicon Valley (and the tech centers in LA and San Diego) is that you get to exert a significant impact on the internet, whether the rest of the internet likes it or not.

Let me get this straight...

[mentalflossboy]

So you have to provide an email address if you're "disseminating" movies/music/etc. What purpose does that serve other than to direct the MPAA straight to your door?

Don't make it sound so ominous...

[The-Bus]

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]

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

You forgot the most important bill

[antifoidulus]

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: You forgot the most important bill

[OldManAndTheC++]

finally made necrophilia a crime

What is the penalty? Is it ... stiff?

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

[csteinle]

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]

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!

Email address? That'll pin em down

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, *no* one will be able to distribute *anything* anonymously if they have to provide an EMAIL address...

After all, an EMAIL address is as solid an ID as a fingerprint!

Signed, [e-mail]

Text of the bill

[the_demiurge]

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]

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.

Re:What about my own music or video?

[Smallpond]

You obviously haven't seen the attempts by the newspapers to prevent this illegal sharing of their copyright works to people who are not the original purchaser.

The Boston Globe, for example, has an advanced system for preventing you from giving your newspaper to someone else. They continue every damn article from the front page to some random other section of the paper, which you will never find unless you have the whole paper in its original order. It works way better than an EULA.

Newspaper on seat?

[HPNpilot]

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]

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".

Re:No problem!

[Lxy]

Get'cher red hot MP3s from your friendly local root@localhost

OK, I just sent you a request for some MP3s. Let me know when you recei... oooh! I have mail, gotta run!

said the pirate to the governator of califoynia:

[circletimessquare]

"i'll be back"

What is the point of this, really?

[ShatteredDream]

If you are sharing content illegally, ie breaking federal copyright laws, then why the hell would be inclined to make it even easier? This is functionally identical to gun registration. How many criminals actually register their guns? If they can't get one off the street, they just get them by stealing from law abiding citizens.

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.

Stupid law

[Capt'n Hector]

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.

Stupid /.er

[geekoid]

It applies to commercial distribution, not copyright as a whole.

So???

[El]

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...

Re:So???

[HiThere]

Actually, the section that I read never even said that it had to be you own email account. Just that it had to either be a valid email account, or be your own. (And interesting formulation.)

Lots of questions

[LS]

* 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

Re:Lots of questions

[Too Much Noise]

How did the terminator become governor?

Coming from the future, he knew the right key combination for your friendly Diebold vote counter?

Questions.

[YouHaveSnail]

That's nice, but it leaves a lot of unanswered questions.

Which of my several e-mail addresses must I disclose?

And for how long after the file transfer takes place must the address remain valid?

How often, if ever, am I required to check for messages?

And does the state impose any particular requirements on what kinds of filters I can apply to my incoming mail?

If I record a protest song and choose to distribute it anonymously (perhaps to avoid retribution by the state), am I prohibited from doing that?

Can I write a letter or produce a film and distribute it anonymously? How about if I use a pseudonym?

I'd like to actually read this law. I find it difficult to imagine that such a law could possibly stand up to any sort of scrutiny in the courts.

Have they considered the implications of spam?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

If everybody on peer to peer networks was required to give out their real email address freely, the spammers would be able to go to town with e-mail lists that they would *know* to be real.

Video Games

[adamjone]

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.

It will never stand...

[Eric Damron]

So, if I want to distribute documents critical of the government I must give the government my email address making it possible to track me down and hurt me? I smell a constitutional issue.

Illegaler?

[FullCircle]

So now sharing content without permission is realy, really, more illegaller than it was before.

Do they really think that people who are already breaking a few laws care about this legislation?

AND to share my own home movies or an indie film that I produce, requires me to submit to a thorough spamming and possible MPAA scrutiny.

Great, thanks for that Arnie.

I'd be curious to know more about. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

the other 89 bills he signed into law yesterday.

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

[TiggertheMad]

But he has made no secret of his opposition to the online sharing of copyrighted material. Last week he signed an executive order prohibiting state employees from using software designed for file sharing.

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...)

My Email Address

[GAMMAH_DJ]

root@127.0.0.1

hmm

[ralphus]

Is there another law requiring anyone who uses the internet in california to have an email address?

Utter bollocks

[ectoraige]

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...

This bill is completely illogical.

[mark-t]

It says it requires your email address and physical address and phone number if you are going to share files.

However, it also says that you are *NOT* obligated to provide these details if you either owned the material you are sharing or otherwise have permission from the coypright holder to be distributing the content.

But if you don't have permission from the copyright holder to distribute the content, then distribution is copyright violation anyways. So this bill is basically saying "If you're going to break the law, you have to tell us who you are and where you live so that we can find you". This is about the stupidest thing I think I may have ever seen.

Re:NO.

[sTalking_Goat]

Screw this. I am not going to obey this law. Tough. Go ahead and arrest me or fine me or whatever, when I get out/pay fines, I'll go right back to doing what I was going.

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...

Re:NO.

[gcaseye6677]

This is what you call feel-good legislation. It makes the RIAA/MPAA lobbying groups feel like they're getting something for their efforts. Any technical person knows the law is meaningless (how hard is it to sign up for an annonymous Hotmail account?) and that it will not affect filesharing at all. But I say let the lobbyists have their petty victory. Maybe it will make them feel like they got something accomplished and they won't try as hard to buy a law that has a truly chilling effect. Wishful thinking,

Re:NO.

[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.

[Some_Llama]

but you COULD sign up for one of the temporary email addresses, you know the one's that expire after so many hours... how they gonna track that?

Re:NO.

[k0ft]

This is what you call feel-good legislation. It makes the RIAA/MPAA lobbying groups feel like they're getting something for their efforts. Any technical person knows the law is meaningless (how hard is it to sign up for an annonymous Hotmail account?) and that it will not affect filesharing at all. But I say let the lobbyists have their petty victory. Maybe it will make them feel like they got something accomplished and they won't try as hard to buy a law that has a truly chilling effect.

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.

Nothing is Anonymous

[nurb432]

Remember hotmail can ( and does ) track the IP address used to setup and access the email account.

IP tracks back to your ISP, which ( again, its been shown due to the RIAA suits ) can be tracked back to the user..

More over then that, if they can prove you were trying to hide, it could be considered evasion of the law.. So you get hit with 2 crimes.. Yippe!

Between this, and outright banning of 50 cal firearms, the man is an idiot and should be tossed out of office..

Thankfully i dont live in california, well actually i refuse too, due to their twisted concept of the constitution..

Heading off Freenet at the pass.

[JInterest]

Maybe it will make them feel like they got something accomplished and they won't try as hard to buy a law that has a truly chilling effect. Wishful thinking, I know.

Actually, I think the purpose in having this law is more subtle than you may realize. This is directly aimed at networks that are DESIGNED to permit anonymous, non-traceable filesharing, which is the next coming thing.

Bad laws are bad laws, because of their potential consequences, and because we don't need them cluttering up our already vast legal codes

Re:No, Freenet's just waiting for the 1st court ca

[imroy]

Freenet inserts splitfiles with 50% redundant error-correcting (FEC) data. So if IllegalFile.avi is split into 1000 data blocks then an additional 500 "check blocks" will be inserted as well. All 1500 blocks have CHK keys listed in the splitfile. So to "prove" that someone probably downloaded a file, you just need to find 1000 of those 1500 blocks in the users' datastore.

Complicating the legal question is that recent Freenet builds (in the last month or two) now effectively make all nodes non-transient. Connections between nodes are now also "bi-directional". So whereas before your transient node only stored content you downloaded, it is now being sent content (and requests for content) from the non-transient nodes that it connects to. The only difference from a permanent node is that they don't announce themselves. I think the idea is to offload some of the storage from the non-transient nodes as well as distribute the data more. I've often found when I leave my node on for several days that a splifile will start downloading and a few (or a lot!) of the blocks are already in my datastore.

In the end I think it depends on the laws in your part of the world. Even if the authorites can find all/most of a file (warez/movie/music/CP/etc) in your freenet datastore, is that enough to convict? i.e does that qualify as "posession"? Or do they have to show (within reasonable doubt) that you purposefully requested that content? Has the EFF or someone compiled information about this sort of thing?

Re:NO.

[tomhudson]

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]

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!!!

Re:Disclose my email address?

[silentbozo]

batshit crazy freaks

You have NO idea. I walked into the local Fry's the other day, and found that pretty much everything in the store had a tag reading "Warning: Handling this product will expose you to lead, a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, birth defects, [etc]"

Holy crap! Was this Fry's once a firing range, and now contaminated with lead? Was everything they were selling made in some south-of-the-border factory that had a lead smelter under the roof? Were these items C

Re:Liberals = Idiots

[Deanalator]

"His "Signing Spree" is helping the film industry make more money to make better films."

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

Re:RTFB

[geekoid]

response to numeber one:
how do you prove someone knows it commercial?

How do the powers that be know it's commercial?

It draws a line between copyright and commercial. So the MPAA can use my works that aren't commercial with no penalty. The members of the MPAA have more then once used material that wasn't theres.

Finally, I should not have to dusclose who I am.

response to two:
Putting people in Jail for possible copyright violation is really ignorant and abusive. It should remain as a civil punishment.

resp

Re:RTFB

[DaveJay]

>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.

Actually, I suspect a passive distributor would be "making available" or "otherwise offering" the material, wouldn't they?