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
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
nt.
Useless sig.
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)
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.
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.
> 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!
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
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."
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
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.
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.
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.