State bill could cripple P2P - Criminal Liability for Manufacturers

c|net News ^ | January 18, 2005 | John Borland

[Nice50BMG]

   http://www.news.com/

State bill could cripple P2P

By John Borland
http://news.com.com/State+bill+could+cripple+P2P/2100-1028_3-5540937.html

Story last modified Tue Jan 18 17:55:00 PST 2005
A bill introduced in California's Legislature last week has raised the possibility of jail time for developers of file-swapping software who don't stop trades of copyrighted movies and songs online.

The proposal, introduced by Los Angeles Sen. Kevin Murray, takes direct aim at companies that distribute software such as Kazaa, eDonkey or Morpheus. If passed and signed into law, it could expose file-swapping software developers to fines of up to $2,500 per charge, or a year in jail, if they don't take "reasonable care" in preventing the use of their software to swap copyrighted music or movies--or child pornography.

Peer-to-peer software companies and their allies immediately criticized the bill as a danger to technological innovation, and as potentially unconstitutional.

"State Sen. Murray did not choose to seek out the facts before introducing misguided legislation that effectively would make criminals out of many companies that bring jobs and economic growth to California," Mike Weiss, CEO of Morpheus parent StreamCast Networks, said in a statement. "This bill is an attack on innovation itself and tax-paying California-based businesses like StreamCast depend on that freedom to innovate."

The bill comes as much of the technology world is waiting for the Supreme Court to rule on the legal status of file-swapping technology.

Federal courts have twice ruled that peer-to-peer software companies are not legally responsible for the illegal actions of people using their products. Hollywood studios and record companies appealed those decisions to the nation's top court, which is expected to rule on the issue this summer.

In the meantime, entertainment companies' push for federal legislation on file-swapping issue has been put temporarily on the back burner. A controversial bill that would have put more legal responsibility on the peer-to-peer developers failed to pass at the end of last year's congressional session.

California has taken a lead among states in putting pressure on the file-swapping world. Attorney General Bill Lockyer was a key figure last year in pushing for more state-level legal scrutiny of the companies' actions, and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sought to ban illegal downloading on any state computers, including those owned by the state university systems.

Murray himself sponsored a bill last year--later signed by the governor--that requires file sharers who send a copyrighted work to at least 10 people to provide a valid e-mail address or risk jail time. He has also authored bills on spyware and spam.

The senator said his bill was intended only to encourage companies to take advantage of existing technology for filtering networks, not to impose requirements impossible to meet.

"To the extent that they agree that they can filter, we think it's reasonable to require filters for peer to peer activity," Murray said. "We're only asking for reasonable controls. We're not asking for people to create new technology or recreate the wheel."

Several companies, including Audible Magic and Shawn Fanning's Snocap , have demonstrated technology that could be used to block trades of copyrighted music, although no such tool has yet been publicly shown for Hollywood movies. Some file-swapping companies say these tools would be impractical to use on a widespread basis.

Murray has worked closely with the entertainment companies on this type of issue, but has also been a staunch critic of record labels' accounting practices and the way they treat their artists. He said he did not work with the MPAA or other groups in drafting the new bill.

Copyright ©1995-2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Nice50BMG]

I immediately began to think of all of the implications this kind of bill might have on all kinds of manufacturers. We've seen liability lawsuits in the firearms manufacturing industry, but now software vendors have to be concerned about Jail Time!

[K1avg]

Unsurprising, to say the least.

Unfortunately, it's not the fault of the P2P developers that people are misusing their product. It's the people sharing the copyrighted material themselves, and punishing the software makers for the misuse of its product is both wrong and stupid. After all, have Linux developers been sued because their OS runs an inordinate number of hackboxes and FTP topsites?

This is the full reason copyright violations are so hard to crack down on...

[rmmcdaniell]

If both the uploading and downloading take place outside the state, they wouldn't even have the authority to regulate that would they?

[TomGuy]

It won't get past the Supreme Court when challenged.

P2P will simply move off the radar. It will go pc-2-pc. That technology already exists and is next to impossible to find unless they actually search every hard drive. And newgroups will continue.

The elected officials who introduce such legislation don't have a good understanding of technology. This isn't much different than Senator Hatch advocating blowing up pc's that download music.

[Nice50BMG]

I wonder... if someone uses Microsoft's Internet Explorer to download child pornography, will Bill Gates go to jail for the criminal use of his product? I mean, he had to know people could download kiddie porn!

[pillbox_girl]

When did we in this country start punishing people for what they might do? Or for what other people they have no control over might do with their products.

I always though in a just society, you have to actualy commit a crime to be punished.

[Nice50BMG]

If someone commits a hate crime though the internet, will they put Al Gore in jail?

[K1avg]

It will go pc-2-pc. It's already here. It's called BitTorrent.

[flada]

requires file sharers who send a copyrighted work to at least 10 people to provide a valid e-mail address or risk jail time

What a silly notion. File sharers don't "send" copyrighted work to anyone. The files just sit there on their computers for the taking.

[TomGuy]

Many of the public Bit Torrent websites were taken down a couple weeks ago.

[Others went private, invite only. lol.]

[mlc9852]

They make up authority as they go.

[mlc9852]

They have invented new definitions of crime now. For example, hate crime.

[Doohickey]

P2P networks are built for the purpose of distributing copyrighted works. I can agree that developers shouldn't be prosecuted for writing the software...but c'mon.

[longtermmemmory]

The official who introduced this is milking the MPAA and RIAA for campaign contributions. This has nothing to do with rights this has everything to do with the best legislators money can buy.

[longtermmemmory]

lets prosecute match makers for every arson created!

We can get a class action going and include the little match girl too!

(sarcasm off)

[Arthalion]

Forget arms manufacturers, this affects real people today.

About three years ago I had a client approach me with a problem. They had about 50 staff members who were constantly drafting and editing documents and were running into all kinds of version control and access problems. They'd tried implementing a file server but ran into problems with people keeping it synchonized. They looked into a professional CMS, but their small company was turned off by the $30k to $50k price tags that most of the markets players seem to want.

My solution was simple. I dusted off an old C++ FTP client that I'd written years ago and added in the ability for it to authenticate against and search multiple servers at once. I then added a simple server client to the application, wrote a rudimentary search and sorting routine, and covered it up with a standard Windows UI.

Now, whenever anybody logs onto the network, their local application uploads a login token to a central server. The other clients automatically see the new token, index the new clients shared folder, and add the new clients files to their "Available Files" list. When a user on another PC wants a file, they simply have to select it from the list without any worries over which client it's located on, or whether another user has it checked out.

It's essentially a very simple network file management system, but under current law it's also a P2P client. Even though the application makes use of some OSS code and I'd like to share it with the public, I can't thanks to the threat of being sued. All it would take is one yahoo adding a distributed directory service to the program, and you'd have a P2P client with functionality rivaling Gnutella. I can't afford to be named as a party to a copyright suit, so a genuinely useful program sits on a CD, gathering dust.

[FierceDraka]

P2P will simply move off the radar. It will go pc-2-pc. That technology already exists and is next to impossible to find unless they actually search every hard drive. And newgroups will continue.

Yeah - everyone seems to have forgotten about god ol' Usenet. It's still there, and still functioning.

Personally, I don't download movies - the quality is crappy, and you don't get all the extra goodies you get with DVD releases.

[FierceDraka]

Many of the public Bit Torrent websites were taken down a couple weeks ago.

I read an article about Bittorrent, and downloaded the software. I thought it was a P2P client, but it's only for WWW sites. So, I ditched it within 15 minutes of installing it.

[US_MilitaryRules]

You can buy a 200 million dollar movie for 15 bucks. You can buy a $500,000 CD of music for 20 bucks. We are getting ripped off. Thats why I haven't bought music for a long time. I know, I'm comparing apples and oranges.

[itsahoot]

The BitTorrent Effect