Slashdot Mirror
Update on State "Communications Services" Laws
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
There maybe really is some hope... We should thank all of the people who are constantly helping in this fight for freedom. They don't have money and power, like the pro-DMCA people do, but they are on the right side. Thank you! It is a good time to donate money to EFF, without which, we could already forget about on-line freedom.
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
however, this will most likely lead to more subversive tactics (like the mass IM'ing they pulled recently) by the MPAA and RIAA...what they don't seem to realize is that they don't have a chance technology-wise against those that wish to share files. Of course, if they pull anything as sneaky and underhanded as actually attempting to delete files from user's system, that will be their final mistake, because they will surely feel the wrath of the enraged consumer then.
But he corrected his mistake before it was too late. Rare in politics
Most of these bills contain provisions disallowing the hiding of the source or destination of a communication. This would make using freenet to break the Great Firewall of China(TM) illegal. Make sure to bring this up if/when this kind of bill gets considered in your state.
I personally detest Bill Owens (for unrelated reasons, mostly relating to pushing the city's around), but I applaud this step.
I have to say I am feeling very happy about being able to send this message through my NAT-enabled DSL router using SSH legally .
Good job EFF!!!
As bills like this are sponcered by our publicly elected officals - I can't help but think that "we the people" do not have any input as to what is acutally happening with the whole DRM/MPAA/RIAA non-sense.
The majority of Americans who's stock and trade crosses paths with the DMCA appear to be strongly against it - yet corporations still wine/dine/donate to these politations that we apparently elected to push such pro-police state laws.
Would it be fair to say that are elected officals only agenda is to do whatever the mega-corporation of the week has to say should be law?
Are there actually elected officals who are are looking out for the common person's liberties, and such? If so, why are there not more of them?
The people have spoken, we do not want a revamped DMCA - as we didn't even want the original DMCA... Yet the original DMCA passed??? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
What would it take to start going on the offensive instead of the defensive, here? Can't special interests groups like the EFF lobby for the creation of laws protecting our rights to fair use, backups, reverse engineering, etc. so that *we* only have to win once?
I do understand we can't compete monetarily, but letting the general public know and understand these issues (instead of preaching to the choir and only publishing these types of things on a site dedicated to "news for nerds") could offset the problem. After all, I guess the only thing that can compete with campaign contributions is the actual swaying of public opinions at times of elections and, due to MPAA/RIAA/Blah propaganda, we are the minority.
I do understand that I'm probably being really naive here, not being a guy that keeps up with/understands politics well. Maybe someone who does can explain the problem and make a few useful suggestions to overcome it.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
As soon as I read the Legislative Assistant's e-mail, I sent a message to Senator Charles Starr thanking him for supporting citizen's rights over corporate interests. I also encouraged him to maintain that stance and to urge his colleagues to do likewise in the future.
Fellow Oregonians can follow my lead at the state legislature's home page. I've realized that I should have had that link bookmarked for years.
"It's an erotic, spectacular scene that captures the thrusting, violent, vibrant world Bohemian spirit..."
Dear Mr. Kirksey:
3 /0 4/31892579.shtml?Element_ID=31892579
Thank you for weighing in on SB 213. I began studying it over the weekend
and have also referred to information available from the Electronic Frontier
Foundation. I must admit that this is an area with which I have little
familiarity, but the legislation could be problematic for the reasons you
address. I appreciate your taking the time to assist by bringing this to my
attention.
Please stay in touch.
Sincerely,
Mark Norris
Senator
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Kirksey
Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 8:04 PM
To: sen.mark.norris@legislature.state.tn.us
Subject: SB 213
Sir,
As one of you constituates, I wish to state my opposition to Tennessee
Senate Bill 213. The bill has some valid points, but the flaws outweigh the
possible good.
The bill is too broad and gives too much power to communications providers.
If taken to extremes, VCRs, network routers and other useful (you could say
essential) devices could be outlawed.
As an attorney, please take a few minutes to read through the bill and
imagine possible scenarios where the bill could be abused.
Thank you for your time.
Thomas Kirksey
and later:
http://www.tennessean.com/government/archives/0
Senator Norris wanted you to see today's coverage of yesterday's Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing. Thanks, in part, to your input, he had more questions to ask the sponsor than they could answer, and the bill will be taken up again in two weeks. Senator Norris shares concerns about the extent to which this proposal may infringe upon certain fundamental rights, including Due Process and Free Speech, and he will continue to work on it. He thanks you for your input and support.
Well, I wrote to my State Senator about the Bill here in Texas and got a response like, "I received your e-mail and understand you are opposed to this Bill."
I then wrote to my State Representative, and wound up spending about 20 minutes on the telephone with him explaining just what the Bill was, how unnecessary it was and the damage it would do to the economy of the State by stifling the tech sector. I also talked with him about some of the privacy and civil liberties aspects of the Bill. I think he will oppose the Bill if it ever gets to the House floor.
So yes, one person who can write a well-reasoned e-mail to a Congressman can make a difference. Legislators have to act on hundreds of bills in every session. There is NO way they can be fully informed on the subject matter of every bill they consider. It is absolutely essential that their constituents who have special knowledge in various fields write to them and give them the benefit of that expertise or we will wind up with even MORE bad laws on the books than we currently have.
utter rubbish