January 19, 2005

Yikes! A bill in California (PDF text of bill) may send the heads of some filesharing companies rolling by making it illegal to distribute the software without ensuring pornography or copyrighted material isn't being shared. But who has the time to take "reasonable care" to prevent copyright infringement of all those users? The bill's author: "Even if you aren’t selling crack, you can’t have a crack house."

Does Senator Murray, the author of the bill, have a point - and if so, is this feasible? How would this affect Bittorrent? What would Ahhnold say? via Boingboing...

  • five millionth time I forgot to include a URL description... sorry guys.
  • Well, it's the kind of law that's been overthrown before, but that doesn't mean it can't be revisited. Bittorrent may be able to get by with "significant noninfringing" applications, but Jack Valenti (who once described the VCR as a serial killer stalking hollywood) and his friends didn't like that when it was the standard set in the Betamax case, either. As written, I think it bans ftp, any IM client that allows file transfers, and maybe web browsers and gopher clients, too. You could make a case against TiVO as well, which might suit the money behind this just fine, too.
    (b) 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. When a transaction is complete, the user has an identical copy of the file on his or her computer and may also then disseminate the file to other users connected to the network.
  • From the bill: 653.15. (b) 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. When a transaction is complete, the user has an identical copy of the file on his or her computer and may also then disseminate the file to other users connected to the network. So that would include, just for example, the networking features on Windows? So when my colleagues and I are all connected the same wireless router, and share our hard drives so we can grab images and Quark files and suchlike from each other, and my mate also grabs a copy the first Shins album that I ripped from the CD I bought so that he can see if he likes it before buying it for his girlfriend... Bill Gates can go to jail? Cool. I must copy the Scissor Sisters off him next time I go round to his.
  • MCroft kinda beat me to that, then. Feh... Preview, schmreview. Oh, and next time I go round to his refers to my mate, not Bill Gates. I haven't been round Bill's in, like, years. He never calls any more.
  • Even if you aren't selling crack, you can't have a crack house. Then it's not a crack house, is it? So it's not illegal. Go practice your metaphors some more, Murray.
  • p2p as crack. Yeah, it feels that way sometimes. But will my kid be a "p2p" baby?
  • "Even if you aren’t selling crack, you can’t have a crack house." I think the more appropriate metaphor is that you're not allowed to make a house unless you can ensure that crack isn't going to be sold in it. Heck, you shouldn't be able to sell a police car on auction if you can't ensure than an ex-con and his brother aren't going to buy it and use it to help raise a lot of money to help some nuns, getting chased by copy and Illinois Nazis along the wa....Oh, sorry. Got lost there for a second. You get the idea, though.
  • I hate Illinois Nazis.
  • So much for the Internet then.
  • I hate Illinois Nazis. That's practically my motto.
  • I want to introduce a bill that just makes computers illegal and be done with it. Nothing but flowers.