Update on State "Communications Services" Laws

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Update on State "Communications Services" Laws

Posted by michael on Friday May 23, 2003 @07:30AM from the when-lobbyists-attack dept.

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

34 of 223 comments (clear)

Good News by clonebarkins · 2003-05-23 07:33 · Score: 5, Funny

Wow, a governor with a brain. I'm moving to Colorado. Think they'll let me bring my guns?

--

"The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
1. Re:Good News by clonebarkins · 2003-05-23 07:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Damn, Flamebait? Really? I was going for Funny. Guess that'll learn me.
  
  Since this one'll probably get modded offtopic anyway, I'll say: 1) Yes I have been to Colorado, 2) I support gun ownership, and 3) I was supporting the governor, not being a wise-ass. I'm just glad they haven't tried to introduce this kind of crap in New York State. If somebody stands up to it at some point, it will be that much easier for others to defend against it.
  
  So I stand by my original post -- A governor with a brain! And one who's willing to fight for the rights of the people who elected him! That's a treasure for sure, and something that you Coloradans should be greatful for!
  
  --
  
  "The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it." -- Ayn Rand
2. Re:Good News by missing000 · 2003-05-23 08:00 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  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!!!
Please remember his name during election time. by damu · 2003-05-23 07:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

nt.

--

Useless sig.
1. Re:Please remember his name during election time. by sqlrob · 2003-05-23 07:52 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  But he corrected his mistake before it was too late. Rare in politics
2. Re:Please remember his name during election time. by bobdinkel · 2003-05-23 08:02 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Excuse me? Vote for a guy who can not understand the bills he is backing? Hell, no! This guy is dangerous, he shouldn't be allowed in Politics!
  No. This is a guy that listened to his constituents. And now he's more sensitive to these issues and is less likely to take lobbyists at their word. He'd have my vote in a heartbeat.
  
  --
  A publicly traded company exists solely to make profits for shareholders.
3. Re:Please remember his name during election time. by sweetooth · 2003-05-23 08:29 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Did you ever consider he was only hearing one side of the story? Sadly it appears that most of the laws that end up on the books are not completly understood by those that pass them. They rely on aids and advisors to help them understand the pros and cons of the bills. If he only go the lobbyists side of the story initially and the ACTUALLY LISTENED to his constituents he is a helluva lot better than most of his peers. The problem is that if you look more closely at the story these are only temporary setbacks in both Oregon and Colorado.
So... by Mensa+Babe · 2003-05-23 07:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

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)
1. Re:So... by demaria · 2003-05-23 07:58 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Before donating money to the EFF, I'd like to know if they did anything effective here, or just put out a press release. What is their win record? People constantly on slashdot say 'give to the EFF', but are they an effective lobby in any way? Or is my money better spent on other lobbying groups?
2. Re:So... by loosifer · 2003-05-23 08:46 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Speaking as one of the main motivators behind the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network, the group that helped stop the bill in TN, no, the EFF wasn't terribly useful here. The didn't have effective legal analyses (we had to do our own), they didn't have good technical analyses (again, we did our own), and they also didn't have good alternative legislation (um, again, our own).
  All of this can be found at our web site, so hopefully others won't start so quite from scratch.
  In this case, save your money and spend some time; create your own tech-friendly lobby in your state, and begin monitoring this kind of stuff. It sucks to watch sausage get made, but if you don't get involved, you've got no one but yourself to blame. We're planning on starting a formal non-profit to continue fighting for the right to innovate with technology, and I recommend that other states do the same.
3. Re:So... by wfrp01 · 2003-05-23 09:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  I hope you're right. However, given our current system, I'm dubious.
  
  The problem is that the pro-DMCA folks will try again. And again. And again. In this venue and that. Turning words and phrases, but never really veering from their intended purpose.
  
  The problem is that laws are easier to enact than to retract. The fact that this legislation made it as far as it did is unnerving. If this proposal had been rejected outright by the legislature, that might be different. But we see here that a small shift in the balance of power would result in this bill's enactment.
  
  The problem is that the general population does not feel like issue such as this are important enough to sway their votes against advocates of such legislation. Unless they change their minds, it's only a matter of time...
  
  --
  
  --Lawrence Lessig for Congress!
4. Re:So... by Trailer+Trash · 2003-05-23 10:22 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  As someone who is marginally involved with TNDFN, and personally working hard to kill this legislation, I think it's in order to mention what did help our cause.
  
  First, plenty of face time with the legislators. Second, we were present and seated together every time the bill was brought up in a committee (after we learned about it). There were 10 of us present each time. Most other issues had nobody there who cared, so we got attention. This thing would have died weeks ago had we been there; it should have never gotten to this point.
  
  This was difficult. I spent literally 40+ hours on "capitol hill" (it really is a hill here in TN) sitting in boring meetings, talking to representatives and senators, their aids, battling evil lobbyists, etc. This cost me money, cost my company money (my parking costs were nearly $100 over the last few weeks), and cost me a lot of time. It was worth it.
  
  Mainly, pay attention to the bills that are being pushed in your state, and go fight them in every way that you can if they're stupid. Send a simple piece of paper to all relevant representatives and senators, with simple bullets that can be skimmed in 10 seconds or less (whole sheet). Anything helps, but don't email a stupid form letter.
  
  We'll be talking more about this in the coming months, but the one thing to take away from this is that we need to band together and make it clear to slimy lobbyists and the elected representatives who listen to them that the tech industry is a bee hive that they don't want to mess with. We are huge ($600B annually in the US) and it's time we use our clout.
  
  The war isn't over, but we won a major battle. I cannot wait to see the head shill with his tail between his legs. I hope he's in town on Tuesday.
  
  Michael
  
  --
  Do you have ESP?
Hyper-DMCA Laws by core_dump_0 · 2003-05-23 07:40 · Score: 5, Funny

First DMCA, then Super-DMCA? Soon we'll have Hyper-DMCA, Ultra-DMCA, Mega-DMCA, and eventually Mega-DMCAx2 which gives full ownership of our computers to the entertainment industry.
1. Re:Hyper-DMCA Laws by murphyslawyer · 2003-05-23 07:55 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  Eventually we'll have to just give it up and call it DMCA-Firebird.
  
  --
  I ain't evil, I'm just good looking.
Lots of good news lately... by Bonewalker · 2003-05-23 07:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
nice guy?!?! by spumoni_fettuccini · 2003-05-23 07:44 · Score: 3, Funny

the MPAA lobbyist (who really is a nice guy) Yeah so is the car salesman that's got this sweet deal on a '76 Lincoln, driven by a little old lady on Sundays.

--
-- Some days you're the dog; some days you're the hydrant.
1. Re:nice guy?!?! by Pettifogger · 2003-05-23 08:13 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  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.
  
  --
  IAAL
Maybe writing your congressman CAN help! by g_adams27 · 2003-05-23 07:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

> The email you sent to Sen. Starr (and I hope all of the committee
> members) helped to stop this dangerous legislation. Good job!
Wow! I guess maybe one guy writing his congressman can make a difference! I'm glad that there are some sponsors of bills like this who don't supporting super-DMCA-type bills because they're eeeeeeeeevil, but because they simply don't recognize the consequences of their legislation and are willing to change when they realize what they're actually sponsoring. I'm also glad this senator apparently had a legislative aid with some sense to oppose the bill!
1. Re:Maybe writing your congressman CAN help! by ninewands · 2003-05-23 15:59 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Quoth the poster:
  
  Wow! I guess maybe one guy writing his congressman can make a difference!
  
  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
Great start, BUT by RealAlaskan · 2003-05-23 07:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is good news, but: the setback to the people behind these bills is only temporary. They stand to loose their livelihoods eventually, if they don't significantly curtail our freedoms. They aren't going to take ``no'' for an answer.
The lobbyists WILL be back next year, and the year after, and they'll keep telling bigger lies, and offering bigger bribes, until either they get their way, or the industries which fund them shrivel up. Or, perhaps, until we make such a big noise that the politicians decide that this is an untouchable issue.
Remember: the lobbyists only have to win ONCE in each state. We only have to get careless or complacent ONCE to let them win. This was good news, but the battle isn't nearly over yet.
We need to keep educating the unwashed masses, need to keep letter-writing campaigns going, and generally need to keep following up. We also need to volunteer in the re-election campaigns of the clueful few who are on the right side here. And tell other candidates why we chose to volunteer for Mr. Clueful instead of Mr. Other.
Those bribes from the lobbyists are only valuable to the legislators if they believe that the bribe can buy more votes than the legislation will cost them. When a lobbyist walks into a legislator's office and says: ``I'd like to talk to you about strengthening copyright ...'', the legislator needs to be able to point to a pile of letters on his desk and say: `` These letters are from voters who are on the other side, and I get a big stack like that every day. I'd like to help, but I can't afford to. Why, I'd loose half my campaign workers if I even listened to you!''

--
See what I've been reading.
Re:Interesting by cK-Gunslinger · 2003-05-23 07:51 · Score: 3, Informative

Quote:

I protest. Why was my post modded down to -1? I was merely expressing my opinion that this article is really not very interesting, that's all. Jeez.
Because the purpose of posting responses to articles is to foster meaningful discussion about the topic at hand. Since your post simply states that you do not find the subject matter 'interesting' enough to adequately comment on, it is extraneous and has been modded as such, much like this comment is fated. Don't take it personally.
Get involved by geekoid · 2003-05-23 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

politics effect your life, now and in the future.
To not get involved is akin to not monitoring your servers and hoping all will always be fine. Then when it isn't fine, you just complain.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Waking Up by Nom+du+Keyboard · 2003-05-23 07:55 · Score: 5, Insightful

Hopefully this signals that people are finally waking up to what is essentially a stealth campaign to end the doctrine of Fair Use. It is now being exposed for what it really is, nothing more than attempts to take away rights you already have in order to better line the pockets of a few, already rich, companies.
Now if they public could only realize why they would benefit from undoing the last several copyright extensions as well.
And that legislative assistant may have called the MPAA lobbiest a nice guy, but I don't agree. He obviously lied about the bill to get it introduced. I'd never let that guy in my office again!

--
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Why Owens Did This by Uosdwis · 2003-05-23 08:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Gov Owens has banked his popularity on the Colorado economy which is heavily dependant on the 'New' economy of IT,internet, prog etc. Owens has touted that he is resonsible for making Colorado a prominent player in this economy. Very much so in the last election.

Well the economy sucks here, many people have been laid off, no new jobs, just like most places. He had to do this or he'd be out of a job too.
Senator Starr by oaf357 · 2003-05-23 08:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

Did he not read the bill before he supported it? WTF! He shouldn't be re-elected.
Democracy? by osguru · 2003-05-23 08:15 · Score: 5, Interesting

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.
1. Re:Democracy? by RealAlaskan · 2003-05-23 08:29 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  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?
  No. It would be fair to say that our elected officials' only agenda is to get re-elected. If mega-corp-of-the-week is more effective at aiding that cause than we are, they get to write the laws. If we're more effective, WE get to.
  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?
  Not many, and they won't be there long, unless the common people bother to find out who they are, and support them. We can support the good guys with money, but that won't go far if mega-corp-of-the-week decides to target them by funding their opponents. We can support the good guys by telling everyone we know WHY they're good. We can support the good guys with our time, by volunteering in their campaigns, year after year.
  It's all either expensive, or time-consuming, or both. That's why the mega-corps (and the mega-unions) generally do better at getting their way than we do.
  
  --
  See what I've been reading.
Taking the offensive? by TrekkieGod · 2003-05-23 08:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Remember: the lobbyists only have to win ONCE in each state. We only have to get careless or complacent ONCE to let them win.
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.
Process workings by Wylfing · 2003-05-23 08:32 · Score: 5, Informative
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.
--
Our intelligent designer has never created an animal that we couldn't improve by strapping a bomb to it.
Finally! by orbbro · 2003-05-23 08:36 · Score: 3, Interesting

Some nationally-recognized news that actually makes me proud to live in Oregon.
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..."
Re:Old news. by stratjakt · 2003-05-23 08:40 · Score: 3, Funny

Wednesdays story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it now!

--
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Re:Colo-NRA-do by toothgnip_1 · 2003-05-23 09:06 · Score: 4, Informative

Well speaking as a current CO resident I can tell you that most counties in CO have conceal and carry laws (Larimer County, and Weld County for sure and I know I could find others if necessary) and about the loosest form of gun control remotely possible. About the only liberal tree hugging area of the state is Boulder, the rest of CO is staunchly conservative which would be obvoius to anywone willing to look at the voting records in CO for the last 10 years.

So I am going to have to assume that either you haven't been to the state in years or that you are just trolling.
One may make a difference... by Cpt_Kirks · 2003-05-23 10:11 · Score: 5, Interesting

Dear Mr. Kirksey:

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/03 /0 4/31892579.shtml?Element_ID=31892579

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.
with nice guys like those who needs bastards? by uncadonna · 2003-05-23 10:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

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!
I would think that deliberately misleading a legislator about the purpose of proposed legislation would disqualify a person from real niceness. Just my fringe opinion, I guess.

--
mt