Florida lawmakers are considering legislation that would make it unlawful to run a website anonymously if it offers "commercial" recordings and videos. The aim of the bill is to close or disrupt websites that don't comply—all in the name of protecting intellectual property rights.

The bill, which landed on the state's House and Senate floors Tuesday, requires websites to display a "correct name, physical address, and telephone number or e-mail address" of the owner if they play a "substantial part in the electronic dissemination of commercial recordings or audiovisual works, directly or indirectly." The disclosure is required even if all the recordings or audiovisual works disseminated by the website are owned by the website owner.

The "True Origin of Digital Goods Act" raises constitutional concerns, according to Mitch Stoltz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation:

The ability to speak anonymously is an important free speech right. Forcing website owners to identify themselves violates the First Amendment when laws like this one are vague about which sites must comply. Even a site that a court decides is “likely to violate” the statute could be de-anonymized. In addition, using state law to regulate the contents of websites creates constitutional problems because the Internet is borderless. This bill could easily apply to sites hosted anywhere in the U.S., not just in Florida. State regulation of websites can interfere with the federal government’s exclusive authority over interstate commerce.

The bill excludes ISPs from its purview and would give copyright owners the right to ask a judge to unmask the identity of the website operator. According to a legislative analysis of the bill, the recording or motion picture industry intends "to proceed with third-party injunctions to discourage Internet service providers, hosting services, payment services or other Internet website services from working with websites that fail to disclose their personal information required by this bill."

Stoltz said similar laws have been used to justify police raids. "In 2007, a Georgia police SWAT team (with RIAA employees in tow) raided the studio of DJ Drama and DJ Cannon, makers of influential 'mixtapes' that record labels used to promote their artists," Stoltz wrote. "The police arrested the DJs and confiscated their CDs and equipment. Their justification wasn’t copyright law (which is a federal law) but a more limited version of the same law Florida is considering, one that applies only to physical goods. If Florida expands on Georgia’s law by including websites, we could see similar police raids against music blogs or other avenues of online speech. And the works on the site might even be in the public domain, as long as some 'owner, assignee, authorized agent, or licensee'—perhaps a broadcaster—complains."