Georgia: Yet Another Super-DMCA hearing

David Turner writes "Tomorrow, 4/23/03, Georgia's General Assembly's Public Utilities Committee is holding a hearing on yet another DMCA-like bill, HB867. Please come to the capital, room 230, at 2:00pm. I'm told that the bill is unlikely to pass this term anyway, but if you have time, it's important that the legislature sees that only the MPAA supports this, and that it's a special interest bill. Also, this bill is worse than most other state bills, because it hasn't had the latest set of MPAA patches applied, so it still has major anonymity problems." Read on below for Turner's list of specific problems with the bill.

"Section 1:

• (b)(7)(A): "In proving actual damages, the complaining party shall be required to prove only that the violator manufactured, distributed, or sold any communication device or unlawful access device, but shall not be required to prove that such device was actually used in violation of this Code section."

  Note that this makes security research much harder.

• (c): mere linkage and "unauthorized" access is illegal

  Under (c)(1), it's possible that merely typing the wrong web site (and thus, creating a TCP connection) could be a violation. Under (c)(2), if you hook your computer up to your cable line, watch out! Because it could be used to descramble HBO, it's illegal.

Section 2:

• (a) is too broad:
  • (1): Almost everything is a communication device
  • (2): Almost everything is a communication service, including network television.
  • (3): Almost everyone is a communication service provider, including network TV stations
• (b)(1)(A): ... to acquire or facilitate the receipt, interception, disruption, transmission, retransmission, decryption, or acquisition of a communication service without the express consent or authorization of the communication service provider; ....

  Here's my standard commentary on this:

  Section (b)(1)(A) prohibits receiving communication services without the express consent of the communication service provider. This means that you can't use a radio or television without permission from the broadcasters. Nobody is going to tell you that you can't watch TV, but they might tell you that you can't record it, a right the US Supreme Court affirmed in 1984. They might tell you that you can't use your TiVo to pause it while you answer the phone. The Motion Picture Associate of America, primarily through its Copyright Protection Working Group, has already said that it wants to limit these sorts of freedoms.

  Although I'm too young to remember it, I'm told that people used to be required to rent phones from the phone company. People would get in trouble for using third party phones, and had to pay for each extension. If TV and radio broadcasters have their way, you may have to rent your radio, TV, and VCR from them, or only use "authorized" equipment. And this equipment won't have a record button.

• (b)(1)(B): This section prohibits anonymous communication, a right the Supreme Court affirmed in McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission. IIRC, there was also an anyonymity ruling from the northern district of GA.
• (b)(4): You can't distribute "plans" for these devices, so freedom of speech is implicated. It's impossible to effectively discuss security unless security breaks can be studied."

Comments

f*** them ....

[josepha48]

... I'll just stay at home and stair at the wall ...

Time To Roll

[SlipJig]

I wrote letters a couple of days ago to my representative and senator about this bill, but if I can get down there from Alpharetta I'll be there at 2:00. This bill can't be allowed to pass.

Georgia wants to outlaw TV!!

[Rev Snow]

If you can't motivate voters with
a slogan like that, there's no hope.

Re:Georgia wants to outlaw TV!!

[Kibo]

I would imagine that "If you record an episode of Cops, you may be eligiable for a guest appearence on Cops" would get a lot of attention, especially in Georgia.

They don't have to

[overshoot]

Section (b)(1)(A) prohibits receiving communication services without the express consent of the communication service provider. This means that you can't use a radio or television without permission from the broadcasters. Nobody is going to tell you that you can't watch TV

They don't have to tell you that you don't have permission; without their "express permission" you're a criminal.

It's been pointed out that in many States, citizens have standing to sue to force the State to comply with its own laws. I wonder if the good people of Illinois should sue to take down the firewalls on Illinois networks?

Someone post an update

[Krelnik]

Did anyone from Slashdot attend this hearing yesterday? What was the result?