www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> MP3 terrorists? -- is appallingly inaccurate
E. Miller on Wed, 21 May 2003 11:57:28 +0200 (CEST)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> MP3 terrorists? -- is appallingly inaccurate


As an Oregonian I took particular interest in this, so I went and actually
read the bill in question.  It took just a few minutes to figure out that
this story is completely wrong.  It should be taken down and a prominent
correction issued.  NOW.

For starters, it's not law as implied in the Nettime post.  It was a Senate
bill that would appear to have died in committee a couple months ago.
http://www.leg.state.or.us/searchmeas.html (search for Senate bill 742)

As for the actual text of the bill: given that I'm not a lawyer or a
legislator, I might not be the most adept at reading legislation, but to me
it seemed rather clear that sections one and two of the legislation are the
sections directly related to terrorism.  Section three, the section
containing all of the egregious crimes against humanity (i.e., #39,
"Unlawful recording of a live performance") is included solely to add ONE
LINE (#132) to list the previous two terrorism sections as enforceable under
forfeiture provisions of Oregon law, categorizing it as "prohibited
conduct". See 
http://www.leg.state.or.us/orlaws/sess0600.dir/0666ses.html
And scroll down to section 1-11b.

In other words: mislabeling a CD isn't terrorism.  What the amendment says
is that if you commit an act of terrorism as defined in this bill
(paraphrased definition: attacking or conspiring to attack or disrupt
infrastructure, institutions, or groups of assembled people) under Oregon
law any ill-gotten material gains associated with your act are subject to
forfeiture.

That's not to say that the incredibly broad wording in section 1.1 isn't
absurd.  Among other things, a Critical Mass ride would probably constitute
terrorism.  The bill deserved to die, which it apparently has been kind
enough to do.  But that's not the point here.  Point out my mistake if I
made one, but this article is flat-out wrong.  I have to ask: if someone is
going to post an wildly alarmist story like this, shouldn't someone bother
to actually READ the legislation in question?

As a side note: I just love web 'journalism'.  Go to the link below, click
on the "discuss on our forum" link, and you get a blurb about someone's
cats.  Oh, and you can't apparently view the forum (let alone post) unless
you log in.  So...present it as news, then wall off the forum where viewers
could rebut what appears to be an unsubstantiated and egregiously inaccurate
story.

Ten minutes of simple web searching shows that this story is a steamin' pile
of fabricated bullshit.  The fact that it's a misrepresentation intended to
play to the prejudices of its techno-libertarian audience makes it that much
more reprehensible.

Gah.

Eric

On 20-05-2003 12:18, "Jason Handby" <jasonh {AT} pavilion.co.uk> wrote:

> In Oregon, the "unlawful labelling of a sound recording" is now classified
> as terrorism:
> 
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9568
> 
> 
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo {AT} bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} bbs.thing.net