Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the get-some-amy's-ice-cream-too dept.

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."

2 of 38 comments (clear)

  1. Re:How bad is this compared to others? by egoff · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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..."

  2. Re:Don't let this one slip by... by tliston · · Score: 2, Insightful
    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.