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.

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