Trust Posted May 11, 2003 Share Posted May 11, 2003 Recently, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) has been pressing states to enact new legislation aimed at criminalizing the possession of what they call "unlawful communication and access devices." These measures represent an unprecedented attack on the rights of technologists, hobbyists, tinkerers and the public at large. In essence, these proposals would allow "communication service providers" to restrict what you can connect to your Internet connection or cable or satellite television lines. These measures represent a stealth effort to dramatically expand the reach of the federal Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has already put fair use, innovation, free speech and competition in peril since being enacted in 1998. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) strongly opposes these state "super DMCA" bills as unnecessary and overbroad. The proposed bills represent the worst kind of special interest legislation, sacrificing the public interest in favor of the self-serving interests of one industry. Resources For the latest news about the status of the various bills, as well as updates about what you can do to share your views with state legislators, check EFF's "Super-DMCA" Action Center page. Another excellent resource is Professor Edward Felten's page on these bills. Background The MPAA's state lobbyists have been stealthily pushing these state super-DMCA measures since at least 2001. Even before these activities crossed activists' radar, six states (Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Wyoming) had already enacted them into law. Similar bills have been introduced and are currently pending in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Tennessee and Texas. The bills are generally offered as amendments to existing state criminal laws relating to signal theft, that is, getting cable television without paying for it. Since these signal theft laws vary from state to state, the super-DMCA proposals also vary in their wording. Nevertheless, all of the proposed bills appear to be derived from a single "model bill" developed by MPAA lobbyists and thus share common traits. First, they would all impose a new ban on the possession, development, or distribution of a broad array of "communication" and "unlawful access" devices, along with a ban on devices that enable anonymous communication. All the bills also create a new right to bring civil lawsuits to enforce these provisions. The definitions used in the bill are absurdly broad. The bill protects "communication services," which includes any "service lawfully provided for a charge or compensation" delivered via electronic means using virtually any technology. This would include every wire in your house for which you pay a fee, including your telephone, cable TV, satellite and Internet lines. This category also sweeps in any Internet-based subscriptions services, including digital music services such as pressplay, MusicNow, or Rhapsody. The super-DMCA bills would regulate the possession, development and use of "communication devices" and "unlawful access devices." A "communication device" is virtually any electronic device you might connect to any communication service. The definition of "unlawful communication device" is somewhat narrower, sweeping in any device that is "primarily designed, developed, ?possessed, used or offered? for the purpose of defeating or circumventing" a technological protection measure used to protect a communication services. The proposed bills generally prohibit four categories of activity: Possession, development, distribution or use of any "communication device" in connection with a communication service without the express authorization of the service provider. Concealing the origin or destination of any communication from the communication service provider. Possession, development, distribution or use of any "unlawful access device." Preparation or publication of any "plans or instructions" for making any device having reason to know that such a device will be used to violate the other prohibitions More: http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/200304_s...ff_analysis.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts