Bad laws, bad code, bad behavior (ZDNet) [LWN.net]

News.com looks at bad laws in the U.S. including a new bill which would require parental consent before installing "peer to peer" software. "Software distribution sites like those of SourceForge and the Comprehensive Perl Archive Network would be outlawed, if they did not follow these byzantine legal rules, which include obtaining 'verifiable parental consent,' if the downloader is a minor, ensuring that the software can be readily uninstalled, keeping 'records of its compliance' and so on. Anyone running such a Web site outside the United States would be required to hire a "resident agent" and file reports with the FTC--hardly a boon to the burgeoning global open-source movement."

(Log in to post comments)

Bad laws, bad code, bad behavior (ZDNet)

Posted May 11, 2004 16:07 UTC (Tue) by arcticwolf (guest, #8341) [Link]

Anyone running such a Web site outside the United States would be required to hire a "resident agent" and file reports with the FTC--hardly a boon to the burgeoning global open-source movement.

I doubt most people running software repositories etc. outside the USA would be impressed by that law, though. In fact, the most natural reaction to this law being passed would be to move repositories out of the USA - it's been done in the past (PGP, international kernel patch etc., OpenBSD development), and could be done again.

Bad laws, bad code, bad behavior (ZDNet)

Posted May 11, 2004 19:58 UTC (Tue) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]

I don't see that SF or CPAN use anything resembling what is commonly denominated as "peer to
peer" software. Who doesn't know what they're talking about? The writer? Or the legislative
staff?

Bad laws, bad code, bad behavior (ZDNet)

Posted May 11, 2004 22:11 UTC (Tue) by aroha (guest, #21535) [Link]

i think the point is, SF.net is the distributor of P2P software (such as gtk-gnutella) - therefore they'd have to obey US law if they are in the US (are they??)

most country's think US internet and techonoloy legislation has been a bit of a joke for many years now. I don't see many country's citizens going out of their way to obey US law. only those with major trade agreements, like australia.

Bad laws, bad code, bad behavior (ZDNet)

Posted May 12, 2004 8:08 UTC (Wed) by eru (subscriber, #2753) [Link]

Not only that, if the article is to be believed: The bill that Stearns and his colleagues suggest as a solution is so broadly worded that it regulates far more than just peer-to-peer applications. Anyone distributing instant-messaging programs, File Transfer Protocol software or Internet Relay Chat clients would have to follow a complicated set of regulations [...].

These days almost every operating system, free or not, comes bundled with FTP and/or instant-messaging software...

Bad laws, bad code, bad behavior (ZDNet)

Posted May 11, 2004 23:14 UTC (Tue) by XERC (guest, #14626) [Link]

Who said, that US needs OS? Who said, that US needs
any technical innovation at all? It even seems, that
even in the EU the law and lawyers become more important
than technical exellence(according to the EPO's actions
& SW-patents). Not to mention, that the US still haven't
even forbidden/delegislated the death penalty, which in itself
already sounds low and regressful enough.

I belive, that there will be a time, when even the EU will
relegislate the death penaty, since it's profitable for
the lawyers. It's pretty possible in such an undemocratic
system as the EU.

Bans

Posted May 12, 2004 3:46 UTC (Wed) by bojan (subscriber, #14302) [Link]

After reading this article, I'm getting the sense of an old, tired and wrong principle: blame it on the ones you can. Isn't it strange that kids are being protected from porn (which seem to be the point of the article) by imposing more restrictions on kids? Wouldn't it make more sense to impose restrictions on people that are in the business of distributing porn? Along the lines of: porn sites should not be part of search engines, the publicly accessible web pages of such sites should not actually contain porn or advertisements to that effect, adults should be prohibited from sharing porn with minors etc.

I just don't get this. It seems like the software is being blamed for the actions of a irresponsible adults. Are we back at the stage where the machines should be smashed because they are evil?

Bans, blame

Posted May 14, 2004 18:37 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link]

There's no real blame placing here, in the sense of assigning the evil to someone. It's just a matter of choking off a bad thing at the most convenient point. Our laws are full of commonly accepted restrictions on people who aren't doing anything evil, but just are in the best position to stop the evil.

I know of a law that fines a grocery store for having its stolen carts on someone else's property. The law doesn't blame the cart owner for the problem. It just establishes an efficient system for distributing wealth.

And it seems to be well settled that a child's poor judgment is his biggest enemy, so there are tons of examples of society protecting the child by restricting him. That's why a child can't work for money, drink alcohol, use tobacco, buy skin magazines, live with an abusive parent, etc., etc. Extending this to Internet matters seems quite natural.

I just don't get this. It seems like the software is being blamed for the actions of a irresponsible adults.

Now you're paraphrasing a famous argument from the gun lobby: Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

IOW, there's nothing shocking here. This debate has been around forever and the libertarian side (punish the evil people; leave everyone else alone) has often lost.