http://www.boingboing.net/2005/01/19/california_induce_bi.html California INDUCE bill bans the Internet An extremist California Senator called Kevin Murray has introduced a Californian version of last year\'s Federal INDUCE Act, a law that proposed to make the very Internet itself illegal, for it bans producing, selling, offering, descirbing or building a network that can be used to share files unless \"reasonable care\" is taken to ensure that the files shared won\'t infringe upon copyright. This, of course, includes email, IM, Web-browsers, and every other tool for exchanging data on the Internet. Nice one, Kevin! Maybe once you\'ve passed this one, you can introduce a bill to make Pi equal to 3 and then execute everyone who insists otherwise. (follow the link, read the article)
It won\'t be passed. I seriously doubt it will happen. They try to get crazy shit passed everyday. Not everything gets passed, believe it or not.
more info on the act here http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_0051-0100/sb_96_bill_20050114_introduced.html BILL NUMBER: SB 96 INTRODUCED BILL TEXTINTRODUCED BY Senator Murray JANUARY 14, 2005 An act to add Section 653.15 to the Penal Code, relating to crime. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL\'S DIGEST SB 96, as introduced, Murray. Peer-to-peer networks: filesharing software. Existing law provides that it is a crime, punishable by a fine notexceeding $2,500, imprisonment in a county jail for a period notexceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment for aperson who is located in California, who knows that a particularrecording or audiovisual work is commercial, to knowinglyelectronically disseminate that commercial recording or audiovisualwork to more than 10 other people without disclosing his or here-mail address, and the title of the recording or audiovisual work.Existing federal law, through copyright, provides authors of originalworks of authorship, as defined, with certain rights andprotections. Existing federal law generally gives the owner of thecopyright the right to reproduce the work and the right to distributecopies of the work to the public. Existing federal law limits theliability of an Internet service provider for copyright infringementfor transmitting material under specified conditions. Existing law also provides that any person who accesses andwithout permission adds, alters, or damages data or programs thatreside in a computer or computer system is punishable by a fine notexceeding $10,000, by imprisonment in a county jail, or byimprisonment in a state prison for 16 months or 2 or 3 years, or byboth fine and imprisonment. This bill would provide that any person or entity that sells,advertises, or distributes peer-to-peer file sharing software, asdefined, that enables the user to electronically disseminaterecordings or audiovisual works over the Internet who fails toexercise reasonable care in preventing use of the software to commitan unlawful act with respect to a commercial recording or audiovisualwork, or a violation of provisions related to production,possession, distribution, or advertisement of obscene matterdepicting a minor under 18 years of age, or tampering with,interference with, damage to, or unauthorized access to computer dataor systems, is punishable by a fine not exceeding $2,500,imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceed one year, orby both that fine and imprisonment. Because this bill would create a new crime, it would impose astate-mandated local program. The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse localagencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by thestate. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making thatreimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by thisact for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes.State-mandated local program: yes.THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 653.15 is added to the Penal Code , to read: 653.15. (a) Any person or entity that sells, offers for sale,advertises, distributes, disseminates, provides, or otherwise makesavailable peer-to-peer file sharing software that enables its user toelectronically disseminate commercial recordings or audiovisualworks via the Internet or any other digital network, and who fails toexercise reasonable care in preventing use of that software tocommit an unlawful act with respect to a commercial recording oraudiovisual work, or a violation of Section 311.1, subdivisions (b),(c), or (d) of Section 311.2, Section 311.3, 311.4, 311.10, 311.11,or 502 is punishable, in addition to any other penalty or fineimposed, by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars($2,500), imprisonment in a county jail for a period not to exceedone year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.(b) As used in thissection, \"peer-to-peer file sharing software\" means software thatonce installed and launched, enables the user to connect his or hercomputer to a network of other computers on which the users of thesecomputers have made available recording or audiovisual works forelectronic dissemination to other users who are connected to thenetwork. When a transaction is complete, the user has an identicalcopy of the file on his or her computer and may also then disseminatethe file to other users connected to the network. (c) As used in this section \"recording\" means the electronic orphysical embodiment of any recorded images, sounds, or images andsounds, but does not include audiovisual works or sounds accompanyingaudiovisual works. (d) As used in this section \"audiovisual work\" means theelectronic or physical embodiment of motion pictures, televisionprograms, video or computer games, or other audiovisual presentationsthat consist of related images that are intrinsically intended to beshown by the use of machines or devices such as projectors, viewers,or electronic equipment, or a computer program, software, or system,as defined in Section 502, together with accompanying sounds, ifany. (e) As used in this section,\"commercial recording or audiovisualwork\" means a recording or audiovisual work whose copyright owner, orassignee, authorized agent, or licensee, has made or intends to makeavailable for sale, rental, or for performance or exhibition to thepublic under license, but does not include an excerpt consisting ofless than substantially all of a recording or audiovisual work. Arecording or audiovisual work may be commercial regardless of whetherthe person who electronically disseminates it seeks commercialadvantage or private financial gain from that dissemination. (f) As used in this section,\"electronic dissemination\" meansinitiating a transmission of, making available, or otherwiseoffering, a commercial recording or audiovisual work for distributionon the Internet or other digital network, regardless of whethersomeone else had previously electronically disseminated the samecommercial recording or audiovisual work. SEC. 2. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of thisact or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall notaffect other provisions or applications that can be given effectwithout the invalid provision or application. SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 ofArticle XIII B of the California Constitution because the only coststhat may be incurred by a local agency or school district will beincurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction,eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crimeor infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the GovernmentCode, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning ofSection 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. </PRE>
since the P.A.T.R.I.O.T. act passed, i believe anything could pass. even a law forbiding two people to love each other...
The Patriot Act in it\'s entirety shouldn\'t have gone through. They didn\'t pick at it like they should have...same thing with the 2nd one. Had they really paid attention, some of it\'s contents would not be in there now. That\'s been admitted. I\'m for some of it and against some of it. The law against gay marriage sucks but it\'s not a law saying they can\'t love each other. Marriage isn\'t the only way to show your love and, in most instances, I don\'t recommend it. *edit: Although, I do believe they should have the right to do as they please when it comes to marriage. **edit again: \"They\" being the people in love.
So as from now you, Gri77 decides what common sense is? Well here in Norway there are groups (christian fundamentalists) who seriously try to make alcohol illegal. And they tried to stop Jesus Christ Superstar shows by legal action. There\'s always a bunch of nutcases who try to push their beliefs onto others. Just some are worse than others. Now what you need to do is to learn to spot those who actually have a point and those who clearly are complete wackjobs. Then you can have a good laugh at the wackjobs. Don\'t take everything so seriously. Honestly...believing someone would succeed in making the web illegal in California has absolutely nothing to do with common sense. Rather the opposite.
oups : sorry , i edited that out. *puts down the joint...* *takes another puff* yup. it\'s easy to become one of them when you firmly believe what you say.. (ergo the editance) I know, i think so too. But hey, \"what if\" nobody even /know the law is being proposed/ ... ?
I havent read the whole law but it j/seems like a way to fight illegal music and movie downloading. It\'s a bit extreme, but im pretty sure it wont get passed.
lol, thats pretty fucking funny, very doubtful it\'ll get passed and gilligan, stop shit stirring please, many such threads have been made in the past by ppl who are NOT Gri77on, its always happened because its FUNNY, not everything the man says is an attack your your precous homeland
now you are putting on me agenda i do not have, Gilligan I meerly want to show americans what kind of things we non americans hear about... i just want to show you that i understand my view of America is biased, as is my vu of france/europe, I am pretty aware that i do not and cannot grasp the whole picture... neither can you, i think. ++ a law to ban skateboarding, rap music? things do not seem to have change since the days when rock\'n\'roll was devil\'s music... that\'s all i want to point out .. ++ still you make a good point, Gilligan: i should also talk about what i find appealing in America, I will do just that, i\'ve been \"propaganding\" enough about the dark side, let\'s talk about the good side.