News Oregon says unlawful labelling of an MP3 is "terrorism"

This from the Inquirer:

OREGON'S SENATE Bill 742, section 19, chapter 666 defines the "unlawful labelling of a sound recording" as terrorism and would make it punishable by a minimum life sentence of 25 years in prison without parole.

Excuse my French, but WTF?

From the chapter number quoted in the article, I'm tempted to think this is a hoax - but the document itself all looks (on the surface) legit. Maybe one of you USAnian's can check it out for us?

Full story here. But be warned, clicking on this link may make you a Terrorist....

 

i think the drunk driving being terrorism is more worrying. i mean its not exactly the brightest thing to do anyway, but to deem it terrorism with a 25yr-life sentance w/o parole is a bit steep.

 

Chapter 666? hmmmmmmmmm....

if it were true on the other hand i could make a funny comic out of it...

bush: Someones coping MP3's!!! Quick! To the terrorisim Mobile!

 

What exactly do they mean by "labelling" of a sound recording? Does that mean we're not allowed to use ID3 tags anymore?

 

it would mean that no matter how you identify your mp3's for example you cant use any system where by you know what they are. thats if you take it to its ultimate level. alternatly it could just mean that you cant deliberatly rename them to try and hide what you have, thus concealing information. and if you think that a file can be used to transfer information hidden inside it from one place to another without being detected then it makes a little bit of sense. but not much.

Can anyone else say 'knee-jerk reaction' ?

 

Perhaps the Inquirer guys should ask themselves the same question as they're clearly misguided. Just thought it might be worth clearing this up:

The Inquirer is right in saying that Bill 742 defines a crime of terrorism, but the definition is not the enormous list of offences shown in Section 3. Rather, it is defined at the very start of the document, in Section 1(1):

The document then goes on to establish the punishment applicable to the new crime, stringency of burden of proof, parole requirements and various other technicalities.

The effect of section 3 is merely to amend the list of offences proscribed under section 19 of Chapter 666 (a different piece of legislation) so as to include the new offence.

The list in section 19 is fairly broad, covering everything from bribery (subsections 1-2) and theft (subsections 20-23) to trading in slaves (subsection 10), and its function in Chapter 666 is in defining the term "prohibited conduct" as used throughout the rest of that Act, which, from a cursory glance, seems to embody Oregon's law relating to inchoate offences (that is, complicity, conspiracy, knowing assistance etc.)

I realise this message is getting a bit longwinded, sorry, but the point is that, while it is confusing to see the full list of offences reproduced in Bill 742, a bill about terrorism, the list is only there to show where the amendment made by Bill 742 will fit in. The only acts defined as terrorism are those mentioned in Section 1(1) (see quote above). It does not, as the Inquirer incorrectly states, define as terrorist activity the unlawful labelling of sound recordings, producing fake IDs, drunk driving etc.

Sorry again for the longwindedness. I know this is my first post but please believe me on this - I know what I'm talking about (I hope) as I have law finals in a week. AGH!

By the way, Bill 742 is here: http://pub.das.state.or.us/LEG_BILLS/PDFs/SB742.pdf
And Chapter 666 is here: http://www.leg.state.or.us/orlaws/sess0600.dir/0666ses.html

 

dont worry about it, that actully clears alot up.

 

Yeah, IANAL, but I went looking for more info about this myself, and found the Oregon law defining the sound recording business as a 'class six' offense in their list of 'how serious are various crimes.'

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story though.

 

Good old Oregon, full of liberal democrats (I live in Oregon )

Personally, I think we should take all the politicians out of office lock them somewhere secure (or dump them on a remote island). Then, replace them with people who would actually use the money we are giving them for stuff other than enhancing rest-stop areas (our schools could use it).

It is defined quite "loosely" in that section, and there is no mention of anything involving computers...

I'm not concerned. Every mp3 (and WMA) I have is either obtainable legally over the internet (from the artist or publisher), or ripped from my personal CD collection

 

How about placing the politicians in somewhere secure that is also on a remote island? Belt and braces approach - you never can be too safe with guys like that. They may not be clever but they're invariably cunning.

And on that note, good job Dubya for reducing those taxes on dividends. I'm sure that has lifted a crippling financial burden from the shoulders of the average working American...

 

curious when you think about it, bush went off on this war and has cut taxes, meaning he will most liekly have to borrow the 70odd of billion dollars for it from the the World Monatary Fund (i think thats its name) while having one of the poorest credit rating around, and the UK will have to borrow 5billion pounds (i think) and everyone is worried about how we can do this, despite having one of the best credit ratings.

People seem spectacularly knowledgelss about how much money is actually spent on a daily basis in the UK. the best example was on the news, people were asked how long the amount of money spent by the UK on a war on iraq would keep ONE hospital un the UK running for, the answer?, 15 days. that means that every day, the hospitals in london alone are spending billions of pounds, and the whole country must be in excess of 50 billion a day. a frightening amount of money when you think about it on a yearly basis.

 

Interesting point about the tax-cut vs war deficit Bush will be left with. It's worth bearing in mind, however, that the actual cost to the US of the Middle Eastern conflict will be far less than the amount spent by the military. The US in particular (and the UK to a lesser extent) is very patriotic when it comes to sourcing materials of war. Thus the $70bn (if that's the right figure, I'm not up-to-date) includes a few hundred thousand for every bomb dropped, for example. But as a matter of economic theory, since the bombs were built in the US by the US workforce from raw materials sourced within the US, the net cost to the country as a whole is nil. Indeed, it could be argued that by large-scale government spending the economy is in fact stimulated, rather than depleted.

Nevertheless, even internal spending has to be accounted for, and it is hard to see a regime of tax cuts succeeding while waging a war. The depletion of military resources will have to be remedied (after all, Dubya needs something to shoot at the Koreans ) so I would be hugely surprised if the next budget didn't show some fairly heavy tax increases. That said, it's coming round to electioneering time again, and if Bush is to have any chance of making a second term, he's going to need to keep the working men and women of America happy, so it may be that the true cost of the Iraq war won't be borne by the people until the ballot botching season is over.

As to spending $50bn a day on hospitals, I don't mean to cast aspersions on your arithmetical skills, but that really can't be right - since there are only 60 million people in the UK, that works out at £833 per head, every single day, or an annual spend of £300,000 for every man, woman and child in the country, which is about twenty times the GDP. Perhaps the news broadcast you saw had the figures wrong.

 

Ok, I'm prety sure THAT would count as terrorisim

One of those funny Oregon laws: It is illegal to wear rollerskates in an Portland Public Restroom

 

My uncles friend helped write that bill....

heres my uncle:
http://www.lc.state.or.us/staff/dwh.htm

hey Yo-DUH_87, where do you go to school?

 

Home-schooled here, and you?

 

CCHS, moving onto U of P (www.up.edu) next year-
Its nice to see a fellow oregonian on here

 

Same here Don't see many nerdy oregonians around (there are too few )

/me ceases offtopic course

What is your Uncle's take on the bill's meaning?

 

Small world - my step-grandmother hails from your beautiful State