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

RE: Wired News: California bans anonymous speech on the Internet