Murray’s new anti-p2p bill
p2pnet.net News:- “First thing this morning, I’m sitting in my bathrobe, scanning my inbox, when I’m jolted awake by the headline on a TechDirt story, California Senator Wants to Throw Ed Felten in Jail” writes Ed Felten in his Freedom to Tinker blog.
“I guess I’ll take the time to read that story!”
Felten is referring to the latest attempt by the state’s Kevin Murray to launch a bill custom-designed to pillory members of the embryo commercial p2p business in California.
Murray’s proposed law would put p2p developers in jail if they don’t in effect spy on what their users are doing and take “reasonable care” to stop anything which doesn’t meet with the approval of the Big Music record label cartel.
Murray’s previous claim to fame was that, once again acting for Big Music, he made it illegal for Californians to share files without including name, address, e-mail.
His new bill would fine, or imprison for up to one year, any Californian or Californian enterprise that:
“[...] sells, advertises, or distributes peer-to-peer file sharing software, as defined, that enables the user to electronically disseminate recordings or audiovisual works over the Internet who fails to exercise reasonable care in preventing use of the software to commit an unlawful act with respect to a commercial recording or audiovisual work, or a violation of provisions related to production, possession, distribution, or advertisement of obscene matter depicting a minor under 18 years of age, or tampering with, interference with, damage to, or unauthorized access to computer data or systems, is punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500, imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment”.
Mike Weiss runs StreamCast Networks, owner of Morpheus which would be one of – the only? – p2p application affected by Murray’s proposed bill.
“It’s yet another attempt to control open communications that is no different than the development and distribution of Yahoo Messenger and Mail or MSN’s IM or AOL’s AIM and email software,” Weiss told p2pnet.
“If only the entertainment industry would put an equal amount of time and effort in working with companies like StreamCast rather than trying to protect an archaic business model made obsolete by our latest technological advances, they would find a new road of riches from which everyone would benefit. “Perhaps our government officials would better serve the public interest by mandating that instead.”
But maybe Morpheus wouldn’t, after all, be the only p2p software in the line of fire.
“ TechDirt argues that my TinyP2P program would violate the proposed law,” says Felten.
TinyP2P is the world’s smallest p2p app, written in 15 lines of Python by Felten, “with help from Alex Halderman”.
“Actually,” he goes on, “the bill would appear to apply to a wide range of general-purpose software.
” ‘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.
“That definition clearly includes the web, and the Internet itself, so that any software that enabled a user to connect to the Internet would be covered. And note that it’s not just the author or seller of the software who is at risk, but also any advertiser or distributor. Would TechDirt be committing a crime by linking to my TinyP2P page? Would my ISP be committing a crime by hosting my site?
“The bill provides a safe harbor if the person takes ‘reasonable care’ to ensure that the software isn’t used illegally. What does this mean? Standard law dictionaries define “reasonable care” as the level of care that a “reasonable person” would take under the circumstances, which isn’t very helpful. I would argue that trying to build content blocking software into a general-purpose network app is a fruitless exercise which a reasonable person would not attempt. Presumably Mr. Murray’s backers would argue otherwise. This kind of uncertain situation is ripe for intimidation and selective prosecution.
“This bill is terrible public policy, especially for the state that leads the world in the creation of innovative network software.”
===================
Something you think we should know about? tips[at]p2pnet.net
===================
See:-
Throw Ed Felten in Jail – My Morning Pick-Me-Up, Freedom to Tinker, January 19, 2005
claim to fame – California’s ‘True Names’ bill passes, p2pnet, June 18, 2004
violate – World’s smallest p2p application, p2pnet, December 15, 2004
January 19th, 2005 at 8:23 pm
and the world after America
January 19th, 2005 at 9:51 pm
just another dickhead taking kickbacks and bribes from the entertainment industry.
January 20th, 2005 at 4:08 am
Let’s see what kind of software will be affected :
1.Apache,IIS and all web server programs in the world that “enables the user to connect his or her computer(In this case:Web-browsing computer) to a network of other computers on which the users of these computers(In this case:Web servers) have made available recording or audiovisual works for electronic dissemination to other users who are connected to the network”
2.Outlook,Thunderbird and all email software that “enables the user to connect his or her computer(in this case:email client computer) to a network of other computers on which the users of these computers(In this case:email servers) have made available recording or audiovisual works for electronic dissemination to other users who are connected to the network”
3.MSN,ICQ and all IM programs which “enables the user to connect his or her computer(In this case:one IM client) to a network of other computers on which the users of these computers(In this case:other IM clients) have made available recording or audiovisual works for electronic dissemination to other users who are connected to the network”
4.Neighborhood of the Internet:Need to say more?
The bill would in fact regulate all software that enables file transportation between computers,or even the Internet itself
The second problem is the defination of “reasonable care” . Under current situation, the federal court says that P2P companies do not have do adapt “filters” to control information flowing in the network formed by their software(I would not use the term “their network”, since this term provides misleading concept that the network is created,maintained and controled by P2P companies). In conclusion , the problem is : What if the federal court says that “resonable care” does not include “filtering” ?
January 20th, 2005 at 4:49 am
I hear that this dickhead is one of Orin Hatch’s KIDS!!!! After all Orin is a mormon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
April 26th, 2005 at 10:46 pm
Dickhead blah blah ,shut up and DO SOMETHING TO PREVENT THIS BILL FROM PASSING! ACT NOW !
If you find a way to do it post it so all of us can get involved.