Re: [microsound] the politics of the proper name -- mp3 or terrorist?

[<kyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

as a resident of oregon this caught my attention and I 
went to the Oregon State Legislature's site to read the 
bill myself.  Though I am no legal scholar, I believe this 
article is misleading.  The meat of the bill  (if I am 
reading correctly) is to define terrorism, albeit in a 
very vaguely, widely written and frightening way, and to 
make it a crime.  Section 3 of this bill just amends 
Oregon state law to include terrorism and place it 
alongside existing crimes like:

(39) Unlawful recording of a live performance, as defined 
in
ORS 164.869.

40) Unlawful labeling of a videotape recording, as defined 
inORS 164.872.

Not to mention the usual gamut of crimes like Drunken 
Driving and Prostitution.

I don't know why it is illegal to label a video 
incorrectly but I have a few guess's that make it not so 
outlandish as it may seem on the face.

I will definitely call my state senator about this poorly 
written definition of terrorism that has broad, 
frightening consequences, but I think this article was a 
little too sensational. Then again, I did read the law and 
I am more informed, so I guess it was good thing it was 
written so sensationally. 

Personal Disclaimer: I am not a legal scholar so I could 
be reading this entirely wrong.

Kyle

On Tue, 20 May 2003 10:24:15 -0700
  "tobias c. van Veen" <tobias@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>viva sonic fascism?
>better watch what you name those MP3s.
>no shit.
>
>. tV
>
>---- .
>
>In Oregon, the "unlawful labelling of a sound recording" 
>is now classified
>as terrorism:
>
>     http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=9568
>
>
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>For additional commands, e-mail: 
>microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>website: http://www.microsound.org
>

------------------------------