Weekly Edition
Return to the Front pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
This week's Bad Law Proposal
The state of California has long been known for innovative public policies
and laws. Sometimes, the state can be truly visionary in its policies,
and, sometimes...
Senator Kevin Murray, from Los Angeles, has put forward a proposed law which would attack the dreaded scourge of peer-to-peer file sharing networks. In particular, the proposed law reads:
Any person or entity that sells, offers for sale, advertises,
distributes, disseminates, provides, or otherwise makes available
peer-to-peer file sharing software that enables its user to
electronically disseminate commercial recordings or audiovisual
works via the Internet or any other digital network, and who fails
to exercise reasonable care in preventing use of that software to
commit an unlawful act with respect to a commercial recording or
audiovisual work... is punishable, in addition to any other penalty or
fine imposed, by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred
dollars ($2,500), imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to
exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
Of course, "peer-to-peer file sharing software" is a vague term, so Sen. Murray makes it even more so:
As used in this section, "peer-to-peer file sharing software" means
software that once installed and launched, enables the user to
connect his or her computer to a network of other computers on
which the users of these computers have made available recording or
audiovisual works for electronic dissemination to other users who
are connected to the network.
It does not require a particularly expansive reading of that language to conclude that, say, a Linux distribution with an FTP client or web browser meets that definition. The law does not address what "reasonable care" means, but, presumably, "no attempt whatsoever to prevent the distribution of proprietary materials" would not make the grade. The paranoid among us might well see an attempt to outlaw free software here....except for the little problem that this law would be equally applicable to any general-purpose, proprietary operating system. This bill will most probably encounter a rough road, and, with luck, will not be passed. It is, however, another result of a view which is being encouraged by the entertainment industry (and others): software is an inherently dangerous tool which must be heavily regulated. Manufacturers and distributors of cooking knives, hand guns, gasoline, automobiles, etc. are not required to design their products in such a way as to prevent the commission of the obvious crimes which those products enable. But software is a riskier item, and cannot be trusted. The free software community values the freedom it has: if we have a particular need, the only thing that stands between us and satisfying that need is the requisite hacking time. Increasingly, however, we are hearing that our code is illegal in some part of the world or other, regardless of its intent or legitimate uses. This problem is only likely to get worse as the Powers That Be try to get a handle on the strong, but relatively uncontrolled free software world. (Log in to post comments)
This week's Bad Law Proposal Posted Jan 20, 2005 3:32 UTC (Thu) by mbcook (subscriber, #5517) [Link]
Selling windows is illegal! Hoorah!
Oh... wait, so is Linux, BSD, Mac OS, and more. I don't expect this will pass, but when it does and you're not allowed to buy or sell operating systems capable of networking... where does that leave California? The stone age?
Stupid law. Stupid stupid law. Also unenforceable. But, California is known for their idiotic laws (at least those are the ones I tend to hear about).
It'll die (and rightfully so).
This week's Bad Law Proposal Posted Jan 21, 2005 21:42 UTC (Fri) by rickmoen (subscriber, #6943) [Link] mbcook wrote:Selling windows is illegal! Hoorah! Quite. Here's the text of what I'm sending to Sen. Murray in a letter: Hon. Kevin Murray Re: SB96, to amend California Penal Code section 653.15. Dear Senator Murray: Your bill SB96, introduced on January 14, 2005, surely has a noble aim, but as written has catastrophic consequences that presumably did not occur to you, at the time. In particular: SB96 would make all sales, distribution, and advertising of Microsoft Windows or the Apple Macintosh operating system a criminal act, punishable by fines and imprisonment. Moreover, it would also render sale, advertising, or distribution of essentially all retail personal computers equally criminal, because retail computer sales almost always furnish one of those two operating systems, preloaded. Those consequences follow necessarily from SB96, because both operating systems (and others) integrally provide peer-to-peer networking facilities, exactly as that term is defined in your bill. I hope you will immediately withdraw SB96 before it makes our state a laughingstock, the way Indiana's House Bill 246 in the year 1897 embarrassed that state by passing, 67-0, a bill legislating a (wrong) value for "pi". Fortunately, the Indiana Senate solved Indiana's problem by first referring the bill to the Committee on Canals, Swamplands and Drains, and then ultimately postponing consideration indefinitely. It would be a shame to oblige the House to take similar corrective measures, in SB96's case. Best Regards,
No big news: power corrupts Posted Jan 20, 2005 10:03 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] When the government is corrupt, laws multiply (Tao Te Ching).
No big news: power corrupts Posted Jan 20, 2005 11:47 UTC (Thu) by ekj (subscriber, #1524) [Link] That's not very insigthful of him. You could just aswell simplify that statement to "laws multiply."I dare you to find a single example of a country where laws do not over time grow in both number and complexity. The only exception is when the old law is thrown out in total, as it migth be in a revolution or other coup. Heinlein had an interesting idea in "The Moon is a harsh mistress". The parliament is divided in two groups. One of the groups has the power to enact laws, and if I remember correctly need a majority of 60% in the group to enact a new law. The other groups single power is the power to remove from the books any law. Doing so requires a simple majority in the group. In general it's my impression that politicians spend a lot of time thinking up new laws in comparison to the time they spend hunting down and killing old bad law. Perhaps having a dedicated group whose only power is removing law would fix that.
No big news: power corrupts Posted Jan 20, 2005 13:54 UTC (Thu) by uravanbob (subscriber, #4050) [Link] Having a free and independent mass launcher on the moon would help.
No big news: power corrupts Posted Jan 20, 2005 14:19 UTC (Thu) by angdraug (subscriber, #7487) [Link] Err, Tao Te Ching is a book, not a person ;) While I agree that your comment is factually correct in its context (current situation), I have to disagree with it in spirit. Current situation that you describe is neither normal nor necessary, while, on the other hand, revolution is normal and inevitable, rather than exception. Imagine the world we would have to live in if all the past laws of human civilization piled up without all those revolutions that abolished them! I've only re-read "The Moon is a harsh mistress" last weekend, so I still remember that RAH was even harsher: while laws were introduced by majority in the lower house of the parliament, a single vote in the higher house was enough to veto any law. BTW Sejm of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth had similar veto system and it didn't work, once again proving that representative system can't be fixed.
No big news: power corrupts Posted Jan 24, 2005 7:33 UTC (Mon) by dvdeug (subscriber, #10998) [Link] Historically, in Iceland, all free men had to assemble for a complete reading of the laws, and any laws that were omitted in the reading, whether by accident or intent of the reader, if there were no objections, it was repealed.
No big news: power corrupts Posted Jan 27, 2005 13:56 UTC (Thu) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] I like the idea of a "stale" date on laws better.
Laws passed with a simple majority die after 5 years.
Laws passed with some large super majority die after 10 years.
Keep them busy constantly refining the laws we really need to function. Not constantly dreaming up new ones.
Also, it is time for "ignorance of the law is no excuse" to fade away. It may have been wise at some point, but it is way off base these days. We may need exceptions for physical harm to others, or some other way to deal with the consequences, but it needs to fade.
One idea I have toyed with is - and this must be done honeslty by the state - to seat the jury, let the defense question them as to the law the defendant is charged with. If some high percentage of the jury (what 75%, 80%?) do not know the law, the defendant walks.
Give the state a reason to educate the citizens as to the laws they want to enforce.
Also, there needs to be a government office charged with answering matters of law at the request of individuals in writing. If you seek and follow advice on the laws from this office, you cannot be charged if they gave you incorrect info. Perhaps the person who gave you the info should be charged instead? (I only say this, because people love to game the system.)
This week's Bad Law Proposal Posted Jan 20, 2005 12:35 UTC (Thu) by wookey (subscriber, #5501) [Link] I'm not sure hand guns is a particularly good example here. Manufacturers don't need to design them not to be used for harm, but there are often quite rigorous controls on distribution and sale. Not much in the US, perhaps, but certainly in Europe. This is a minor quibble of course; the fundamental point still stands, but would probably be better illustrated by restricting the examples to cars, petrol and knives. And of course cars are not generally available to minors (who no doubt do a lot of not-entirely-kosher file-swapping :-)
Of course in the case of file-swapping the 'evil crime' that this legislation is attempting to prevent is not actually generally agreed to be a crime at all in the populace - which is the real reason why it is hard to believe this will get very far - even in California.
This week's Bad Law Proposal Posted Jan 20, 2005 20:45 UTC (Thu) by brouhaha (subscriber, #1698) [Link] And of course cars are not generally available to minorsI disagree. None of the parents I know go to any particular effort to keep their car keys where their children cannot get to them. Had I been inclined to mischief when I was a minor, there quite often was a car available.
North and South Posted Jan 20, 2005 18:32 UTC (Thu) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] Notice that the legislator introducing this bill is from Los Angeles,home of the entertainment industry. The bill will hit a brick wall when representatives of the bay area and Silicon Valley (home of tech companies) get involved.
This week's Bad Law Proposal Posted Jan 21, 2005 19:29 UTC (Fri) by jae (guest, #2369) [Link] The "not exceeding USD2500" is an interesting touch. It guarantees that slightly bigger companies can pay without breaking a sweat, while small guys (Bittorrent's Bram for example) will whither.
|
|||||||||||