k wrote:
] ] Now, any Californian who shares files with more than 10
] ] people must add their e-mail address to the file. Those
] ] who break this law could be fined up to $2,500, spend a
] ] year in jail or both.
]
] Anonymous speech on the Internet is now illegal in California.
] The MPAA is coming to your state next.

Alright, so I know that I'm in the minority here, but the law isn't prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet. It's prohibiting anonymous re-distribution of copyrighted material on the internet. The bill that I read had nothing in there prohibiting one from distributing either public domain or their own material (speech) over the internet. According to the article the bill could limit anonymous speech on the internet, but at this point it doesn't. There has to be some level of compromise between all out copyright chaos and strict enforcement. I think the limit may be a little low at 10 - especially if it's considered a cumulative total over time, rather than all at once - but it still allows people to share with a few friends under the basic intent of "fair use".

Yes, the MPAA and RIAA are evil cartels. Yes, they screw the real artists and creative people. No, putting the screw to them doesn't help the artists who were originally screwed. I'm not being soft on the cartels, I'm just trying to think of a way that we can find a middle ground that is realistic.

Dolemite

Dolemite wrote:
] k wrote:
] ] ] Now, any Californian who shares files with more than 10
] ] ] people must add their e-mail address to the file. Those
] ] ] who break this law could be fined up to $2,500, spend a
] ] ] year in jail or both.
] ]
] ] Anonymous speech on the Internet is now illegal in
] California.
] ] The MPAA is coming to your state next.
]
] Alright, so I know that I'm in the minority here, but the law
] isn't prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet.

Do you have the text of the bill? I could not find it this morning. The articles all seem to say someone distributing "files" to more then 10 people.

Decius wrote:
] Dolemite wrote:
] ] k wrote:
] ] ] ] Now, any Californian who shares files with more than 10
] ] ] ] people must add their e-mail address to the file. Those
] ] ] ] who break this law could be fined up to $2,500, spend a
] ] ] ] year in jail or both.
] ] ]
] ] ] Anonymous speech on the Internet is now illegal in
] ] California.
] ] ] The MPAA is coming to your state next.
] ]
] ] Alright, so I know that I'm in the minority here, but the
] law
] ] isn't prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet.
]
] Do you have the text of the bill? I could not find it this
] morning. The articles all seem to say someone distributing
] "files" to more then 10 people.

http://info.sen.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1506&sess=CUR&house=B&site=sen

Here's the pertinent info from the Senate analysis:
This bill (1) requires a person who
electronically disseminates (e.g., through the Internet) a
commercial recording or audiovisual work to include his/her
true e-mail address, (2) defines a misdemeanor crime, with
a maximum jail term and fine of one year and $2,500
respectively, where a person fails to make such a
disclosure, (3) defines certain exceptions from the
disclosure requirements, and (4) sunsets in 2010.

"Could" amounts to abuse just waiting to happen. You make laws with are compatible with the established framework. You don't give it free reign outside of it because all law enforcement, and prosecutors are the ones we really trust with respecting this framework. It also would not seem to work in terms of bit torrent. I guess you're only allowed to create 9 seeds with your anonymous email account. Once they're identified by their IP for a reason which has been decidedly unfair and prosecuted for something which is not an ethical need and can potentially damage speech rights, they can then be made an example of by the MPAA/RIAA for a crime which they have been arbitrarily found guilty of. If a law is made which says thieves wear signs on their back which say "I am a THEIF" or else they get a fine, it does not address the actual crime and imposes an extra fine on top of what is considered "just". Thieves who get arrested at the scene are one thing, but the ones not wearing their magic purple hat certainly deserve the death penalty because its obviously that worse of a crime. Or burglarizing a house without shouting loudly about it as you do. It's ridiculous. This law nearly makes it illegal if you commit a crime, but maintain innocence. It's not even clear that it will be terribly effective. It serves no constructive good.

Dolemite wrote:]
] Alright, so I know that I'm in the minority here, but the law
] isn't prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet. It's
] prohibiting anonymous re-distribution of copyrighted material
] on the internet. The bill that I read had nothing in there
] prohibiting one from distributing either public domain or
] their own material (speech) over the internet. According to
] the article the bill could limit anonymous speech on
] the internet, but at this point it doesn't. There has to be
] some level of compromise between all out copyright chaos and
] strict enforcement. I think the limit may be a little low at
] 10 - especially if it's considered a cumulative total over
] time, rather than all at once - but it still allows people to
] share with a few friends under the basic intent of "fair use".
]
]
] Yes, the MPAA and RIAA are evil cartels. Yes, they screw the
] real artists and creative people. No, putting the screw to
] them doesn't help the artists who were originally screwed.
] I'm not being soft on the cartels, I'm just trying to think of
] a way that we can find a middle ground that is realistic.
]
] Dolemite

terratogen wrote:
] "Could" amounts to abuse just waiting to happen. You make laws
] with are compatible with the established framework. You don't
] give it free reign outside of it because all law enforcement,
] and prosecutors are the ones we really trust with respecting
] this framework. It also would not seem to work in terms of
] bit torrent. I guess you're only allowed to create 9 seeds
] with your anonymous email account. Once they're identified by
] their IP for a reason which has been decidedly unfair and
] prosecuted for something which is not an ethical need and can
] potentially damage speech rights, they can then be made an
] example of by the MPAA/RIAA for a crime which they have been
] arbitrarily found guilty of. If a law is made which says
] thieves wear signs on their back which say "I am a THEIF" or
] else they get a fine, it does not address the actual crime and
] imposes an extra fine on top of what is considered "just".
] Thieves who get arrested at the scene are one thing, but the
] ones not wearing their magic purple hat certainly deserve the
] death penalty because its obviously that worse of a crime. Or
] burglarizing a house without shouting loudly about it as you
] do. It's ridiculous. This law nearly makes it illegal if you
] commit a crime, but maintain innocence. It's not even clear
] that it will be terribly effective. It serves no constructive
] good.

I don't really see what you're arguing here - you're a bit all over the map. The bill applies if you are distributing commercial copyrighted material. It doesn't prohibit using the technology of systems like Bit Torrent, it prohibits using any technology to ignore established copyright laws. If you distribute or download copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder, you are a thief, plain and simple. From what I've read in the text, it sounds more like this law finally defined what "fair sharing" of a copyrighted work is - 10 people in a 180 day period. If you're distributing copies of your term paper or even an MP3 of some performance that you own the copyright to, there's no requirement to include your e-mail address. However, if you are sharing a copy of some work that an artist invested their time and money to produce - or signed away their soul to produce - then there should be a defined limit on just how much you can share it.

The "could" came from the article, not the bill. I can find articles on the internet stating that if John Kerry were elected that terrorists could strike in the US again, but it doesn't make that "could" a reality. Wired is writing to a specific audience and knows how to play them.

Dolemite

Dolemite wrote:
] If you distribute or download copyrighted material without permission
] of the copyright holder, you are a thief, plain and simple.

Point 1; you're right, this law only applies in the case of copyright infringement. In that sense it has no free speech impact. Fortunately so, as it was originally introduced with no such provisions.

What is the point of this law?

The point is to move investigations of copyright out of federal law and into state law. What is the difference?

The difference is that federal law enforcement is unlikely to bust you for sharing a file or two. The local police, however, will bust you just cause they don't like you.

Does the punishment fit? A year in prison? A criminal record? No.

If the punishment here was just a fine it would seem reasonable. A year in prison is not reasonable for petty file sharing.

So, you're right, this doesn't have the implications it seemed to from the Wired article. I'm certainly not as unhappy about it as I was upon reading their (poor) description. However, its certainly not something I'm overly happy about. Millions of people share files every day. A solution which targets the large offenders (which we currently have), preferably in civil court, is a solution which makes file sharing uncomfortable enough that people will use non free alternatives to the extend they are available. (itunes, for example, has a shitty selection, so I can't say they've provided a comprehensive legitimate alternative.)

A solution which throws people in prison for copying a few mp3s is neither just nor helpful.