Slashdot Mirror
Tennessee's Super-DMCA Rises From The Grave
Tsar writes "Members of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network turned out in force as Tennessee's Super-DMCA Bill, its hour come round at last, slouched back to Nashville's Legislative Plaza. The industry heavyweights made their pitches, but were thwarted by thoughtful, intelligent comments and questions from the newly-formed Joint Committee on Communications Security. My favorite quote of the day: 'I stand here before you as representing the MPAA, one of the leading advocates of First Amendment rights...' I think I blacked out for a minute after that."
If you're taking the time to write a comment on this story, DON'T. Instead, take that same amount of time to write a one page, reasoned, intelligent letter to your Senators (you have two, you know that?) telling them that you disapprove of this bill, telling them WHY (privacy violation, overextension of copyright, and so forth are good places to start), and encouraging them to work against it. Not tomorrow morning, RIGHT NOW. Get away from that Submit button and go write a letter to someone who could actually do something. Then send it snail mail to their LOCAL office (not DC office), or fax it. (Not email. Many offices don't pay attention to email, although some do.)
I don't want to see any replies to this post. Get away from Slashdot and do something other than whine, or you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
Are you still here? Stop reading and start acting!
I'm not Seth.
I can't access the file, so here's a link to the .pdf, HB0457.pdf.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
What is SB213/HB457?
SB213/HB457 is the Tennessee version of the "Super-DMCA" bill, which is backed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA). Proposed in the Tennessee General Assembly in the 2003 session, versions of this bill have already been passed in eight states (and counting). This legislation negatively impacts citizens' freedom of speech, access to secure communications, and use of many networking technologies. It gives Internet service providers (ISP's) unprecedented control over what types of devices and software citizens can use while connected to the Internet, and gives them power to sue users for thousands of dollars per day if they infringe on that control in any way. This legislation tries to ensure that citizens have far fewer freedoms in their electronic interactions; as the Internet and pervasive computing becomes more a part of our lives, this will translate into control by a few corporations over almost everything that you do electronically.
Why should it matter to me?
Do you have more than one computer? Do you use Linux? Do you use any kind of Internet security hardware or software (called a "firewall"), or does your company use networking equipment to share Internet access using network address translation (NAT), or allow employees to connect from home using a virtual private network (VPN)? Do you cryptographically sign or encrypt your email? SDMCA-based legislation threatens your access to all of these. And if you don't understand some of these terms, you may already be using these technologies and simply be unaware of it. That's unimportant, though, because you can still go to jail for it.
This legislation was presented to Tennessee legislators in 2003 as a "theft of service" bill, designed simply to "update state law so that it comprehensively protects new broadband communication services from piracy and sabotage." In reality, it is much broader and more insidious. The Tennessee bill (HB457) as originally submitted would have made even minor violations of your service contract a Class-D felony, and allowed fines of $1,500 to $10,000, per device or software program, per day, on those found in violation. Compliance would cost Tennessee businesses a bundle as well; businesses planning to move to Tennessee would be less likely to do so.
"It is not a cable theft bill. It is a comprehensive broadband/Internet telecommunications bill."
-- Geoffrey Beauchamp, chief lobbyist for SB213/HB457
You Can Help!
Get informed, get educated, get involved, get organized, get effective. Read all you can about the bills. Read good analyses by people whose motives agree with yours. Write thoughtful and intelligent letters and emails to your representatives. Call them and tell him how you feel and why. Connect with other people who feel the same way that you (and we) do, and help us build a campaign to bring about change for the betterment of Tennessee.
The Tennessee General Assembly is out of session until 2004, and summer study will likely not start until the fall. You can stay current, and help us stay current as well, through our online forums. Keep up with our activities, and stay alert for important news and information that we may have missed. If you have a web page, you can add one of our link banners to your site. Please do what you can to help us get the word out about this dangerous legislation!
I'm not Seth.
The thing with the DMCA is that it's all about trying to thwart people from cracking copy protection mechanisms. And a key step in the process of breaking protection is its eventual transmission from its original source to its eventual destination. IANAL, but from my readings, the DMCA will be coming down as hard on mechanisms which facilitate the transmission of protected materials as much as the mechanisms which are used to circumvent that protection in the first place. Now, let me describe to you the perfect DMCA-circumvention transport tool. It's simple to use. It moves data (software especially) with a minimum of fuss. It can check for differences between the source and the sink, and make appropriate changes to what's being grabbed. And you can use it to upgrade Debian.
Yep, it's apt-get I'm talking about. This is something which has started to get some serious consideration on the Debian mailing lists. What if apt-get is in contravention of the DMCA? What is apt-get is considered to be a tool for the transmission, installing and dist upgrading of pirated/cracked data protected under the DMCA? It's something which is keeping people like Ian Murdoch, Bruce Perens and Joel 'Espy' Klecker up late at night talking with their lawyers just in case the worst does happen.
So fellow apt-get users...please take a moment to consider the precarious position we are all in as a result of this DMCA madness. Write your local congressman. They need to know how evil the DMCA is. And send them a Debian CD-ROM while you're at it...maybe we can win over some Windows users in the process!
apt-get peace out, comrades!
It's not a federal bill. Unless you live in Tennessee those senators are not real interested in your input.
Jefferson certainly knew about the writings of the Denis Diderot and the Marquis de Condorcet. Diderot was commissioned in 1763 by the Paris Book Guild to argue for a copyright equivalent to physical property; he went so far as to claim that works of authorship were in fact a truer form of property, as they were entirely the product of their creator, while physical property could be formed only from natural resources and the work of other men. Condorcet held that ideas originated in nature and, unlike real property, could be cultivated by all without diminishment; on the contrary, he wrote, the dissemination of ideas benefitted the common good. Diderot portrayed the artist as a creator; Condorcet saw a discoverer. Diderot perceived ideas to exist for the benefit of one man, Condorcet wished them to enrich every man.
Had the framers intended a Diderotian system, they would have implemented one. Instead, the American institution of copyright was informed by Condorcet and Locke. But if you want to speculate about Jefferson's mind, why not ask the man himself?
He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody.... -Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Isaac McPherson, 1813
If you were kidding, I missed the sarcasm. Sorry.
... there is a never-ending supply of this stuff. Nobody quotes him because his best stuff is ridiculous, wrong, racists/sexist, or just goofy opinion. There is no leftist conspiracy to ignore him. The man is a joke.
Um, what hate does Rush Limbaugh spew, exactly?
Not sure if "hate" speech is the right word for it, but he frequently makes bizarre, unflattering, and factually malleable comments regarding women's rights supporters, homosexuals, environmentalists... Pretty much anyone who he fails to agree with. He is a big mindless right wing mouthpiece ( kind of like a less evil Ann Coulter ) and deserves absolutely no respect as a journalist. Please note I am not defending big mindless left wing mouthpieces here, so feel free to skip the reply about how Al Franken sucks or whatever.
Since "no liberals quote him", I would like to hold up just a few of his gems here. Its a mish-mash of paranoia, opinion, and questionable facts... Just like you get from tin-foil hat liberals.
Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream.
--Rush Limbaugh
"Militant feminists are pro-choice because it's their ultimate avenue of power over men.... It is their attempt to impose their will on the rest of society, particularly on men."
(Ought to Be, p.53)
Now I got something for you that's true--1972, Tufts University, Boston. This is 24 years ago--or 22 years ago. Three year study of 5000 co-eds, and they used a benchmark of a bra size of 34C. They found that the--now wait. It's true. The larger the bra-size, the smaller the IQ. (TV show, 5/13/94)
* This study is not findable via Nexis search and the president of Tufts in '72 ) is on record as having never heard of it.
"Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along"
* Well... they couldn't vote among other things.
The difference between Los Angeles and yogurt is that yogurt comes with less fruit.
--Rush Limbaugh
* This is funny because he called the gay population of LA fruits!! HA HA
"When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult ; it's an invitation."
(Quoted in FRQ, Summer/94)
* This is funny because he called gay people mindless screw drones!
Mega-dittos!