Talk about false and misleading identification information, the recently introduced Fraudulent Online Identity Sanctions Act should really be called the "Slam the First Amendment Act." It bumps the penalties for trademark or copyright infringement to "willful" levels -- that's up to $150,000 in statutory damages per copyright infringement -- for the mere connection of the infringement to a domain name registered with false information. Never mind that using false information in the address or telephone number fields may be the only way for individuals to protect their privacy; or that the First Amendment rights to anononymous speech may depend on the ability to register a name with "false" pseudonymous contacts. Would Publius be slammed as a willful infringer if someone claimed that the Federalist Papers took a few too many quotations from other sources?
The maximum imprisonment other- wise provided by law for a felony offense shall be increased by 7 years if, in furtherance of that offense, the defendant knowingly provided material and misleading false contact information to a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority in connection with a domain name registration.
Thomas Roessler blogs the hearing and Susan Crawford goes into more detail on the bill.
Posted by Wendy at February 04, 2004 10:31 AM | TrackBackThanks for the comment, Rick, but I'm not suggesting that we give fraudsters a free pass -- only that we not compromise the general public's right to anonymity in non-commercial lawful speech on overblown claims of fraud and infringement. There are already laws that punish fraud, and this bill in fact has little to do with fraud. It does, however, add chill anonymous speech by adding unrelated potential liabilities.
Posted by: Wendy on February 6, 2004 05:54 PMCan't you liberals break out of your self absorbed outlook on society? The world does not revolve around your selfish needs! There is simply too much crime, and too many innocent people getting hurt by individuals, and business entities, engaging in fraudulent activities via the internet. If you want to play the "subversive" 60's type radical, I'm sure you can find other ways to engage in your fantasies.
Posted by: Michael DeYoung, Esq. on February 7, 2004 03:24 PMbc90021's /. thread, at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/02/05/1930246 , recommends services like http://www.domainsbyproxy.com to protect privacy
Posted by: Sherri on February 7, 2004 05:58 PMA response for Mr. DeYoung using the words of individuals that are much more eloquent than I:
"Nobody likes these measures but these are dangerous times."
"Be careful Mr. Dickinson. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
B. Franklin to J.Dickinson
The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all.
H. L. Mencken
Posted by: Dean on February 10, 2004 09:56 AMThe role of politicians is becoming quite disturbing.
This is a law written by a lawyer on behalf of large multi-national corporations. This congressman does not work for the people, but for his own self interests and those of his under-the-table employers.
This law aims to eliminate free speech and privacy - that's it. This congressman needs to be educated on the Internet. It's not a "USA thing" - it's global. This law targets AMERICANS. The businesses using the Internet for fraud will relocate out of the USA and continue their activities, while the 100 million honest people in America who have websites will no longer enjoy a venue to share information and opinions privately. Criminals have a way of circumventing pathetic little laws like this.
The fact of the matter is that copyrights and trademarks can be inadvertently infringed. There are so many that writing a random sentence could lead to "fraud". Who will want to risk more prison time that a rapist current serves, just for a copyright violation?
Of course this congressman is going to jump up and say this is all wrong, that his pro-corporate law will not effect the American people. This is flat out untrue.
Posted by: Bob on February 10, 2004 02:49 PM