Update on State "Communications Services" Laws

stwrtpj writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation is reporting a breaking news item: Colorado Governor Owens has vetoed a super-DMCA-like bill similar to the one passed in Michigan." Felten has a comment on the Colorado bill. Tennessee is delaying their consideration of the bill. And Oregon's bill has died for now; see below for more.

babbage_ct writes "As has been reported on Slashdot before (see here, here, and here for just a few) the MPAA is pushing so-called Super-DMCA laws in states around the country. Well, score one for the good guys. Oregon's version, SB 655 is going to die. Turns out the sponsor was scammed by MPAA lobbyist. See the e-mail from legislative staff below.

From: "Staff SenCharlesStarr"
To:
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 5:17 PM
Subject: Status of SB 655

Status of SB 655:

SB 655 is slated to die in committee this session. It is no longer an immediate threat, however, there will be a study commission appointed over the interim. Sen. Minnis decided that the issue was too complex to resolve this session. I will attempt to inform you when the commission is formed so that you can have further input. Oregon truly dodged the bullet on this. Some states passed the MPAA model legislation before the IT community even knew it existed.

The email you sent to Sen. Starr (and I hope all of the committee members) helped to stop this dangerous legislation. Good job! In case you're wondering why Sen. Starr sponsored this bill in the first place, it was requested by the MPAA lobbyist (who really is a nice guy) but Sen. Starr was told that it was a simple bill to update copyright law in relation to digital media. Yes, and a whole lot more! As the full impact of the bill became clear, Sen. Starr withdrew his support, which contributed to the bill's "unfortunate demise."

If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask.

Ken McDermott
Legislative Assistant
Senator Charles Starr
900 Court St NE S-312
Salem, OR 97301
staff.sencharlesstarr@state.or.us

Comments

Re:nice guy?!?!

[Pettifogger]

I know exactly what he speaks of. I, too, was a Legislative Assistant to a Senator here in Oregon. Though this issue did not come up when I was there, I worked with a lot of lobbyists. They tend to be selected as such because they have excellent personal skills and are very affable. You almost *never* get a hard sell from a lobbyist. This is why it's so seductive. They simply show up, are very polite, and it's next to impossible to send them off rudely or be short with them. They're simply trying to make friends, so their point of view will be taken seriously and they might get access to the Senator. Lobbying and influence are not as clear cut as people might think. Like I said, it's seductive.

Process workings

[Wylfing]

The opening bit at the top from Starr's legislative assistant made me think of something my brother told me. He did a stint as a staffer for U.S. House Rep Dick Army. I asked him what the effect was of people submitting their opinion to their representative in Congress. My brother made the following points:

• If you send your opinion on one side of an 8 1/2 x 11 sheet of paper, it will get to the decision maker and have an effect on his/her opinion.
• The "decision maker" is the senior staffer in charge of that content area. The Rep just asks the staffer what opinion to have, because it's impossible to have an informed opinion on thousands of issues.
• If nobody from the constituency submits an opinion, the staffer will go with whatever the lobbyists tell him/her.
• The staffers are not subject matter experts on anything except being a staffer.

The take-home was that just typing up a short opinion and mailing it to your rep's office has a tremendous effect on the political process.