Texas SB 1116 (Super DMCA) Hearing On 6 May 2003

mrand writes "The Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice has a public hearing scheduled at 1 P.M. tomorrow (Tuesday, 6 May 2003) for the Senate version of the Texas Super DMCA bill. It appears that it will be held in the Capitol Extension, Room E1.016, in Austin. For everyone that is able to attend, the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network has put together some great information for fighting this. For those of you in other states, visit the EFF page on Super DMCA for bill numbers and their status."

Comments

Lobbying Austin: Witness Affirmation Form

[egoff]

If you can't make it to Austin, you can fill out a Witness Affirmation Form and fax it the subcommittee (fax:512-475-3737). The form can be filled downloaded from this PDF, on page 53. This form states for the committee your opinion on the bill at hand. You can testify against SB 1116 without speaking before the committee. This lets the subcommittee know your opinion on the matter without having to appear in person. One final note, this is an old version of the witness affirmation form; however its close enough to the current version that I think it should be acceptable.

Re:Lobbying Austin: Witness Affirmation Form

[mattsucks]

Anybody need gas money to make the drive? I can't make Austin tomorrow (I'm in the DFW area btw) but I could certainly drop a gallon or two in the tank of someone who could.

Related: are there any organized groups within TX opposing this bill? I know the EFF is providing an information clearinghouse function, but do they actually get into the thick of things (meetings, etc)?

Re:Lobbying Austin: Witness Affirmation Form

[Anonymous Coward]

Just make sure you read the law before you write in. I've read it and can't find anything to complain about, so I guess I will not be showing up. Too bad, I wanted to wear my anti-DMCA shirt.

Super DMCA State List

[missing000]

Cache

Re:Super DMCA State List

[missing000]

Oops. I goofed. Here it is

Action now!

[Rudy Rodarte]

Does anyone have good links for flyers we can print up and post in and around UT and ACC campuses? Also, does anyone have a pre-filled out form we can use to fax our representatives or to this committee? You know, something written with some legales thrown in?

In soviet America...

[lightspawn]

movies own YOU!

Oh wait, that's actually kind of scary.

Re:Action now! - Witness Affirmation Form.

[egoff]

After getting the form at this link, page 53 (see above), here are the fields to fill out. The field names are in bold, your response is in italics.

Committee On: Criminal Justice
Hearing Site: E1.106
Date 05/06/2003
I do not wish to testify but wish to register as indicated (check this box)
against (check this box)
Subject Matter SB 1116
Name Your Name
Occupation, Profession, or Business Your Job, the More IT sounding the better
Address Fields Your Address (TX preferrable, not required)
In appearing before this committee I represent: check myself, unless you're filing on behalf on an organization

Then, sign your name on the signature of witness line, and fax to 512-475-3737.

Here is a letter from EFF

[Rudy Rodarte]

Just follow the link and print it out or have them mail it.

Read the Full Law

[Anonymous Coward]

I just read the law and I don't see any problems. This is not the scary stuff I've heard about in other states. Then again, it looks like a lot of the bill has been crossed out. I didn't try to read what it said before.

Re:Read the Full Law

[Hungus]

It is actually much better than most of them because it states routinely you must have "with the intent to harm
or defraud a communication service". Even so its penalties and some other things are still out of bounds.

I am in the dallas area and will be going to austin for this tomarrow. I can take up to 3 other people anyone interested in a road trip?

I am going to go way out on a limb here and publish my phone number should anyone wnt to come along it is 469-766-5431 ask for Robert.

WOW

[cjackson0]

I'm amazed! I've never wanted so much to live in Texas so that I and everyone I know could show up and actually be heard, for once. It wasn't until I started visiting /. here that I actually kept up on what Uncle Sam was doing to my rights.

Here's hoping that the people will be heard today.

How bad is this compared to others?

[photon317]

How bad is this compared to the original and other state super-DMCAs, if anyone knows? I read the linked copy of the bill text (which is rather short), and every definition of an offense seems to be gaurded with the phrase "with the intent to harm or defraud a communications service". Is this just syntactic sugar, in that in any case they'll quickly show some hypothetical way that you could have defrauded or harmed, and consider that good enough for "intent"? I don't see the law as being all that bad (all things considered) if they actually had to adhere to this limitation and only go after people they could prove were defrauding a commercial service provider... kinda sounds like it's aimed at cable theft.

Now of course, in my ideal world, if you can hear and decode a signal, it's yours. That means TV descramblers, scanners with cell-range coverage, etc, etc... should all be legal. If someone doesn't want you to listen to a signal, they should bother to actually encrypt it usefully, rather than resorting to legal crap. I'd even go so far as to say if you can crack their encryption, you're still legal - it was their fault for using something you could crack, like 40-bit DES or something else weak.

But in the big scheme of all the crap modern laws, this Texas one doesn't sound all that bad to me, again depending on the real-world meaning of their "intent" language. Anyone know how this would likely play out?

Re:How bad is this compared to others?

[egoff]

Even if the Texas law isn't as bad, and I'll wait for an EFF lawyer before making that decision, the law getting passed in Texas could contribute to a snowball effect for other states. An MPAA lobbyist could easily argue "We've had no serious issues in all these other states; its no big deal, just an update to existing laws." Protecting Texas from this bill can protect other states in the future, and perhaps the nation as a whole. How many times have you read about a bill before Congress, in an article that included the phrase "27 of the 50 states have already passed versions of the bill..."

Re:How bad is this compared to others?

[alyandon]

I tend to agree with you that the language of the bill lends itself to targetting people that are knowingly defrauding communications services and people that manufacture/sell/possess equipment for that purpose.

Still, most of this stuff is already criminalized anyway (except for maybe possession) - why do we need another law to affirm what is already illegal?

Re:How bad is this compared to others?

[RGRistroph]

I can't comment on comparing this bill to others as I have not read the others.

However, fraud is illegal. Why do we also have to make it against the law to commit fraud in certain peculiar ways ? What about the telecommunications industry makes them deserve special protection against fraud that other industries don't get ? In fact, when is the Texas Legislature going to make it illegal for telecommunications companies to defraud Texans ?

I think the "intent" escape clauses are weak. Intent is difficult to prove or disprove. In general, all intention based laws are weak and constitutionally suspicious, because they amount to making certain thoughts illegal. The proposed bill contains this language, apparently an attempt to get around the difficulty in proving or disproving intent:

"Sec. 31.145. PRESUMPTION FOR OFFENSES AFFECTING COMMUNICATION SERVICE. For purposes of the prosecution of an offense under Section 31.12, 31.13, or 31.14, it is prima facie evidence of the actor's intent to harm or defraud a communication service provider that the actor failed to respond within 30 days to written notice from the provider stating that:
(1) there is an unauthorized connection between the actor's property and a system, network, or facility owned or operated by the provider;
(2) the provider has reason to believe the actor is in possession or control of a communication device that is connected in a manner that facilitates the unauthorized access, acquisition, decryption, interception, receipt, transmission, or retransmission of the provider's communication service; or
(3) the provider has reason to believe the actor is in possession of five or more communication devices or unauthorized access devices for a purpose that is prohibited by law."

So "intent to defraud" can really mean you had possesion of a computer capable of NAT'ing and did not take it down when then sent you a letter. In fact, the "intent" doesn't have to involve any crime; you have criminal intent if you don't obey notice from the telecommunications provider.

This law could say it was illegal to use certain products to defraud. That would be analogous to increasing the penalty for murder when it was committed with a particular weapon. But it doesn't say that; it simply says that it is illegal to possess a tool that might be used to commit a fraud, after an extra-legal entity (the phone company) has sent a letter.

Note this interesting section on what damages they can recover from you:

"Sec. 135.002. EQUITABLE REMEDIES. A claimant, including a communication service provider, aggrieved by a communication services offense may obtain a declaratory judgment or other equitable remedy, including a preliminary or final injunction to prevent or restrain the conduct that constitutes the communication services offense. The claimant may obtain a remedy under this subsection regardless of whether the claimant proves that the claimant has suffered or is threatened with actual damages or irreparable harm or lacks an adequate remedy at law. "

Re:How bad is this compared to others?

[Anonymous Coward]

"with the intent to harm or defraud a communications service".

I would think that any violation of your terms of service could be construed as an intent to defraud.

The router I have hooked up to my cable modem would make me a criminal, because I'm not paying for an extra IP address for my second computer like my terms of service says I have to.

Re:How bad is this compared to others?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the "intent" escape clauses are weak. Intent is difficult to prove or disprove.

No one needs to disprove intent. You are assumed innocent, so the state must prove it. As you say, it's almost impossible to prove intent, except in the most clear cut cases. In those clear cut cases, the guilty people will get what they asked for.

Re:How bad is this compared to others?

[Anonymous Coward]

In practice, Texas has not had the presumption of innocence for quite some time. While Texas is famous for incidents such as Tulia, I don't think the rest of the US is really much better. Maybe the area in and around NYC might have some reminents of the old system in practice.

This tangential to the main issue in this thread.

It used to be that if you were hauled into court on false charges, and the State failed to prove it's case, you could just rest with no arguments, and expect to walk because the judge and jury would understand that that case against you had not been shown.

However, particularly if you live in certain places in Texas, if you are brought into court under (for example) false charges of connection multiple televisions to the cable line and not paying the extra fees, you better bring some evidence. Such as polaroids of every room in your house, testimony of people who have visited you, or something. Even though they have no evidence and simply got the wrong address on their charges, if you just walk into court and watch them present nothing, and don't present anything yourself, you will be convicted. A jury in Williamson or Montgomery counties would have no problem throwing you in jail because some authority said you stole and you didn't prove you were innocent.

Which makes it even more imperative to curb this type of law. It also makes it imperative that, should it pass, we deligently report any violations of this law by relatives and associates of judges and legislators. If important lawyers get reported for having a PBX multiplexing the single phone line to their office, they of course won't go to jail or even have any problems a phone call won't solve for them; but it may get the law repealed.

Re:How bad is this compared to others?

[sqlrob]

if you are brought into court under (for example) false charges of connection multiple televisions to the cable line and not paying the extra fees, you better bring some evidence. Such as polaroids of every room in your house,...

Or a copy of the FCC regulation that prohibits that practice. The state law wouldn't override the federal regulation.

Rally call

[Paddyish]

If you're from Texas and reading /., you need to do something about this.

Being Patriotic means being informed, being active, and knowing what your government is doing. As Americans, you can stand for the advancement of science and technology, and against the corporate tyranny which threatens that which we hold dear. So use your rights (while you still have them) and let the government know that they serve people America, not the whim of mass greed.

Re:Action now! - Witness Affirmation Form.

[shdragon]

thanks.. i was wondering what some of those blanks were supposed to be. :)

btw, i'm in houston.... you?

What should I wear ?

[MrRudeDude]

If I go down there to testify, is it better to dress as an ordinary citizen ( jeans and button shirt, brown ropers ) or should I get slacks and the red polished boots and maybe a tie ?

Re:What should I wear ?

[Hungus]

I personally will be in a shirt, tie, jeans and comfy shoes. I may instead wear my clerical collar. I dunno though as this is not a religeous matter. BTW is there any place decent near the site to grab lunch ? I will be driving in from Dallas.

Re:What should I wear ?

[Duwke]

The best food in Austin is Trudy's. http://www.trudys.com/ North Star is probably the easiest to get to

Re:What should I wear ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have got to be kidding me.

Trudy's is absolutely mediocre Tex-Mex. There's a hell of a lot better out there.

Re:What should I wear ?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not allowed on the floor of the Texas Senate without a tie.

I know, I've been there.

Re:What should I wear ?

[MrRudeDude]

But this is a committee, not the floor.

Anyway, I'll be dressing up in full interview/funeral suit, black ropers, real tie not the string one. As a friend observed, the best way to get them to listen is to be mistaken for a representative of SBC. I'm glad I cut the mullet when it got hot.

Re:What should I wear ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But this is a committee, not the floor."

Oops, my bad. I'm still a little ticked at having to wear a tie when I was there.

Just got a call

[Rudy Rodarte]

I just got a call from a rep down at the capitol. They want me to go down and fill out a card stating my position. I can't at the moment, so they will just add my fax to the record, but my name will not be read out during the proceedings. I don't know what that means, exactly because, of course IANAL.

Re:Just got a call

[Ms.G_Austin]

What this means is that they make it hard for anyone besides professional lobbyists to participate in the process. Sure, you can email your legislator, but you can't even fax your testimony to the committee (& that's the only stuff that goes on record).

Lunch

[MrRudeDude]

Of course the place is packed with restaurants that feed off of the legislature business.

I would go west from the capitol to Lavaca, and then turn right (north) and look for the Texas Chili Parlor. If that's crowded, keep going north and where it makes a T intersection with MLK blvd. there is a place called Players which has a decent burger.

Don't let this one slip by...

[tliston]

In Illinois, this slipped in under the radar. Don't let this happen in Texas. I'm currently working to get the Illinois law changed, but if you can keep it from happening at all, you'll be much better off.

The killer question to ask on this is: "What specific illicit activity, that is not currently illegal under Texas law, is this new legislation targeting?" For further information on where things stand in Illinois, see the HackBusters site.

Re:Don't let this one slip by...

[Anonymous Coward]

What specific illicit activity, that is not currently illegal under Texas law, is this new legislation targeting?

Possession of cable descrablers that have been modified to decode all channels.

NEXT!

Re:Don't let this one slip by...

[tliston]

Possession of cable descrablers that have been modified to decode all channels.

NEXT!

This is exactly the problem with laws like these. They make possession of tools that could be used for illicit purposes equivalent to the use of tools for illicit purposes. I have a crowbar in my basement, but that doesn't mean I'm out using it to break into houses. If someone actually uses a cable descrambler to steal service from the cable company, they're doing something illegal - it's called theft. You can't tell me that theft isn't currently illegal under Texas law.

The mere fact of ownership of a device that can be used for illicit purposes doesn't mean that it is being used in that manner. There is a presumption of guilt in these laws that runs quite counter to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" on which our legal system is supposed to be founded.

the AWE 3332 will be worse

[DrSkwid]

but hey, that's progress

What's the big deal?

[archnerd]

Perhaps the Texas bill is more sweeping, but I just read the so-called "Super DMCA" for Florida and I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It seems to me that it just puts in tougher penalties for stealing cable. I think at least most people on /. agree that cable theft is morally wrong, so what's the problem? The most provocative thing in the Florida bill is making it illegal to advertise cable-theft devices. That got my attention, but the bill says specifically that it's only illegal if the "primary use" of the device is for violating other portions of the law.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Poeir]

Except for how it makes tools for decryption illegal, unless you have express permission of the service provider. It's also unlawful to sell such tools.

So look out, Best Buy. Windows XP is now illegal,, and you're selling it. This is not FUD, excepting a misreading as IANAL, but here's the relevant portion from the law. I'm not sure if I've cited it correctly, because the formatting here is atrocious. It's also apparently a third-degree felony. So is aggravated battery. Max sentence of five years.

Here's the bit to start reading at: "A person may not knowingly intercept, receive, decrypt, disrupt, transmit, retransmit, or acquire access to any communications service offered by a cable operator or any other communications service provider, or knowingly assist others in those acts, unless specifically authorized to do so by a cable operator or other communiactions provider, or as otherwise specifically authorized by law. For the purpose of this section, the term 'assist others' in committing any of these acts includes:"