"Could" amounts to abuse just waiting to happen. You make laws with are compatible with the established framework. You don't give it free reign outside of it because all law enforcement, and prosecutors are the ones we really trust with respecting this framework. It also would not seem to work in terms of bit torrent. I guess you're only allowed to create 9 seeds with your anonymous email account. Once they're identified by their IP for a reason which has been decidedly unfair and prosecuted for something which is not an ethical need and can potentially damage speech rights, they can then be made an example of by the MPAA/RIAA for a crime which they have been arbitrarily found guilty of. If a law is made which says thieves wear signs on their back which say "I am a THEIF" or else they get a fine, it does not address the actual crime and imposes an extra fine on top of what is considered "just". Thieves who get arrested at the scene are one thing, but the ones not wearing their magic purple hat certainly deserve the death penalty because its obviously that worse of a crime. Or burglarizing a house without shouting loudly about it as you do. It's ridiculous. This law nearly makes it illegal if you commit a crime, but maintain innocence. It's not even clear that it will be terribly effective. It serves no constructive good.

Dolemite wrote:]
] Alright, so I know that I'm in the minority here, but the law
] isn't prohibiting anonymous speech on the internet. It's
] prohibiting anonymous re-distribution of copyrighted material
] on the internet. The bill that I read had nothing in there
] prohibiting one from distributing either public domain or
] their own material (speech) over the internet. According to
] the article the bill could limit anonymous speech on
] the internet, but at this point it doesn't. There has to be
] some level of compromise between all out copyright chaos and
] strict enforcement. I think the limit may be a little low at
] 10 - especially if it's considered a cumulative total over
] time, rather than all at once - but it still allows people to
] share with a few friends under the basic intent of "fair use".
]
]
] Yes, the MPAA and RIAA are evil cartels. Yes, they screw the
] real artists and creative people. No, putting the screw to
] them doesn't help the artists who were originally screwed.
] I'm not being soft on the cartels, I'm just trying to think of
] a way that we can find a middle ground that is realistic.
]
] Dolemite

RE: Wired News: California bans anonymous speech on the Internet