Slashdot Mirror
Super DMCA Bill In Tennessee
fowlerserpent writes "Middle Tennessee State University's student newspaper Sidelines reports the Super DMCA bill is the hot topic in the state legislature. After a fierce debate the bill has been amended to take the edge off. The Tennessee Digital Freedom Network caught the telecom lobby in the state offguard last year when they put up fierce opposition to the legislation. The original bill would have even made firewall illegal in your home or to be sold in the state, so some of the opponents say."
Joint committee passes revamped telecommunications theft bill
By Patrick Chinnery
Published: Wednesday, January 28, 2004
After almost a year of contentious debate, Tennessee's telecommunications theft bill moved one step closer to becoming law Monday.
A joint committee created specifically to address the conflict created by the bill unanimously passed a significantly revamped version of House Bill 457/Senate Bill 213, one that has both proponents and opponents of the original bill unsatisfied.
However, Sen. Larry Trail (D-Murfreesboro), said in the meeting that that was exactly the reaction he wanted.
"It was our consensus, because we were ... unable to pull the two sides any closer together, we asked Mr. [Tom] Tigue [legislative attorney] to draft a bill that might be equally unacceptable to both sides," Trail said. "He came up with a bill that sent a lot of people crying to my office, so he must have done a pretty good job."
Lawmakers are trying to address theft of digital cable services (including television and high-speed Internet access) and Pay-Per-View movies. Items and actions that the legislature are trying to ban include digital cable descramblers, theft of Internet access through wireless "hotspots," and some encryption devices.
Though they could have been construed as illegal in the original draft, devices such as routers (Internet service splitters to be used inside a home or office) and firewalls (software designed to prevent unauthorized access into a computer) would be acceptable with the new legislation.
The cable industry claims that current telecommunications theft law provides too weak of a deterrent.
"We've had a problem in getting judgements, getting the courts to award sufficient damages when we find people that are stealing cable," said John Ferris, an attorney hired by cable companies.
The Monday's amended bill includes revised criminal and civil penalties.
After Monday's amendment was added, a first offense of less than $1,000 of theft would be punished by fine only, although an offense involving five or more communications devices would automatically be construed as a class D felony.
Damages an aggrieved party could pursue in a civil case include the actual damages suffered and any profits made by the violator or statutory damages between $750 and $5,000 for each offense, with judicial discretion to reduce the minimum or exceed the maximum. The original bill prescribed penalties ranging from $1,500 to $10,000 per offense, per day.
A key point of contention during the debate over the bill has been the phrase "intent to defraud." The original bill submitted in April by Rep. Rob Briley (D-Nashville) and Sen. Curtis Person (R-Shelby Co.) was model legislation drafted by the Motion Picture Association of America and didn't contain the phrase.
The amended version makes it clear that merely possessing the unlawful device isn't enough to constitute a violation of the law - a person must use "deceit, trickery, misrepresentation or subterfuge" with a device.
Several notable groups are behind the bill, notably the Tennessee Cable Telecommunications Association (a lobbying effort of cable companies like Comcast and TimeWarner Cable) and the Motion Picture Association of America. When introduced, those groups claimed it was an innocuous housecleaning bill, meant only to update current legislation to encompass new technologies.
However, opponents of the original bill thought it went much too far.
"House Bill 457 was promoted as addressing theft of cable and Internet service, but this overly broad legislation instead threatens the manufacture, sale and use of legitimate products such as computers, televisions and personal video recorders," Douglas K. Johnson, senior director for technology policy of the Consumer Electronics Association (the l
Federal HIPAA laws require firewalling of resident level data (ie, nursing home).
Everyday I lose more confidence in our ability to govern ourselves. limit -> 0