Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

Texas SB 1116 (Super DMCA) Hearing On 6 May 2003 38

Posted by timothy from the get-some-amy's-ice-cream-too dept.
mrand writes "The Texas Senate Committee on Criminal Justice has a public hearing scheduled at 1 P.M. tomorrow (Tuesday, 6 May 2003) for the Senate version of the Texas Super DMCA bill. It appears that it will be held in the Capitol Extension, Room E1.016, in Austin. For everyone that is able to attend, the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network has put together some great information for fighting this. For those of you in other states, visit the EFF page on Super DMCA for bill numbers and their status."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Texas SB 1116 (Super DMCA) Hearing On 6 May 2003 More

Texas SB 1116 (Super DMCA) Hearing On 6 May 2003

Comments Filter:

  • Lobbying Austin: Witness Affirmation Form (Score:4, Informative)

    by egoff ( 636181 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @02:00PM (#5883566)
    If you can't make it to Austin, you can fill out a Witness Affirmation Form and fax it the subcommittee (fax:512-475-3737). The form can be filled downloaded from this PDF [state.tx.us], on page 53. This form states for the committee your opinion on the bill at hand. You can testify against SB 1116 without speaking before the committee. This lets the subcommittee know your opinion on the matter without having to appear in person. One final note, this is an old version of the witness affirmation form; however its close enough to the current version that I think it should be acceptable.
    • Anybody need gas money to make the drive? I can't make Austin tomorrow (I'm in the DFW area btw) but I could certainly drop a gallon or two in the tank of someone who could.

      Related: are there any organized groups within TX opposing this bill? I know the EFF is providing an information clearinghouse function, but do they actually get into the thick of things (meetings, etc)?

    • Re:Lobbying Austin: Witness Affirmation Form (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just make sure you read the law before you write in. I've read it and can't find anything to complain about, so I guess I will not be showing up. Too bad, I wanted to wear my anti-DMCA shirt.
  • Does anyone have good links for flyers we can print up and post in and around UT and ACC campuses? Also, does anyone have a pre-filled out form we can use to fax our representatives or to this committee? You know, something written with some legales thrown in?

    • Re:Action now! - Witness Affirmation Form. (Score:5, Informative)

      by egoff ( 636181 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @02:22PM (#5883820)
      After getting the form at this link [state.tx.us], page 53 (see above), here are the fields to fill out. The field names are in bold, your response is in italics.

      Committee On: Criminal Justice
      Hearing Site: E1.106
      Date 05/06/2003
      I do not wish to testify but wish to register as indicated (check this box)
      against (check this box)
      Subject Matter SB 1116
      Name Your Name
      Occupation, Profession, or Business Your Job, the More IT sounding the better
      Address Fields Your Address (TX preferrable, not required)
      In appearing before this committee I represent: check myself, unless you're filing on behalf on an organization

      Then, sign your name on the signature of witness line, and fax to 512-475-3737.

  • movies own YOU!

    Oh wait, that's actually kind of scary.
  • Just follow the link [eff.org] and print it out or have them mail it.

  • Read the Full Law (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 05, 2003 @02:37PM (#5883963)
    I just read the law and I don't see any problems. This is not the scary stuff I've heard about in other states. Then again, it looks like a lot of the bill has been crossed out. I didn't try to read what it said before.

    • Re:Read the Full Law (Score:4, Informative)

      by Hungus ( 585181 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @03:27PM (#5884515) Journal
      It is actually much better than most of them because it states routinely you must have "with the intent to harm
      or defraud a communication service". Even so its penalties and some other things are still out of bounds.

      I am in the dallas area and will be going to austin for this tomarrow. I can take up to 3 other people anyone interested in a road trip?

      I am going to go way out on a limb here and publish my phone number should anyone wnt to come along it is 469-766-5431 ask for Robert.
  • I'm amazed! I've never wanted so much to live in Texas so that I and everyone I know could show up and actually be heard, for once. It wasn't until I started visiting /. here that I actually kept up on what Uncle Sam was doing to my rights.

    Here's hoping that the people will be heard today.

  • How bad is this compared to the original and other state super-DMCAs, if anyone knows? I read the linked copy of the bill text (which is rather short), and every definition of an offense seems to be gaurded with the phrase "with the intent to harm or defraud a communications service". Is this just syntactic sugar, in that in any case they'll quickly show some hypothetical way that you could have defrauded or harmed, and consider that good enough for "intent"? I don't see the law as being all that bad (al

    • Re:How bad is this compared to others? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by egoff ( 636181 ) on Monday May 05, 2003 @03:22PM (#5884464)
      Even if the Texas law isn't as bad, and I'll wait for an EFF lawyer before making that decision, the law getting passed in Texas could contribute to a snowball effect for other states. An MPAA lobbyist could easily argue "We've had no serious issues in all these other states; its no big deal, just an update to existing laws." Protecting Texas from this bill can protect other states in the future, and perhaps the nation as a whole. How many times have you read about a bill before Congress, in an article that included the phrase "27 of the 50 states have already passed versions of the bill..."
    • I tend to agree with you that the language of the bill lends itself to targetting people that are knowingly defrauding communications services and people that manufacture/sell/possess equipment for that purpose.

      Still, most of this stuff is already criminalized anyway (except for maybe possession) - why do we need another law to affirm what is already illegal?
    • I can't comment on comparing this bill to others as I have not read the others.

      However, fraud is illegal. Why do we also have to make it against the law to commit fraud in certain peculiar ways ? What about the telecommunications industry makes them deserve special protection against fraud that other industries don't get ? In fact, when is the Texas Legislature going to make it illegal for telecommunications companies to defraud Texans ?

      I think the "intent" escape clauses are weak. Intent is difficu

  • If I go down there to testify, is it better to dress as an ordinary citizen ( jeans and button shirt, brown ropers ) or should I get slacks and the red polished boots and maybe a tie ?

    • I personally will be in a shirt, tie, jeans and comfy shoes. I may instead wear my clerical collar. I dunno though as this is not a religeous matter. BTW is there any place decent near the site to grab lunch ? I will be driving in from Dallas.
      • Of course the place is packed with restaurants that feed off of the legislature business.

        I would go west from the capitol to Lavaca, and then turn right (north) and look for the Texas Chili Parlor. If that's crowded, keep going north and where it makes a T intersection with MLK blvd. there is a place called Players which has a decent burger.
      • The best food in Austin is Trudy's. http://www.trudys.com/ North Star is probably the easiest to get to
  • I just got a call from a rep down at the capitol. They want me to go down and fill out a card stating my position. I can't at the moment, so they will just add my fax to the record, but my name will not be read out during the proceedings. I don't know what that means, exactly because, of course IANAL.
    • What this means is that they make it hard for anyone besides professional lobbyists to participate in the process. Sure, you can email your legislator, but you can't even fax your testimony to the committee (& that's the only stuff that goes on record).

  • In Illinois, this slipped in under the radar. Don't let this happen in Texas. I'm currently working to get the Illinois law changed, but if you can keep it from happening at all, you'll be much better off.

    The killer question to ask on this is: "What specific illicit activity, that is not currently illegal under Texas law, is this new legislation targeting?" For further information on where things stand in Illinois, see the HackBusters [hackbusters.net] site.

  • but hey, that's progress
  • Perhaps the Texas bill is more sweeping, but I just read the so-called "Super DMCA" for Florida and I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It seems to me that it just puts in tougher penalties for stealing cable. I think at least most people on /. agree that cable theft is morally wrong, so what's the problem? The most provocative thing in the Florida bill is making it illegal to advertise cable-theft devices. That got my attention, but the bill says specifically that it's only illegal if the "prima
    • Except for how it makes tools for decryption illegal, unless you have express permission of the service provider. It's also unlawful to sell such tools.

      So look out, Best Buy. Windows XP is now illegal,, and you're selling it. This is not FUD, excepting a misreading as IANAL, but here's the relevant portion from the law. I'm not sure if I've cited it correctly, because the formatting here [flsenate.gov] is atrocious. It's also apparently a third-degree felony. So is aggravated battery. Max sentence of five years.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Take that, you hostile sons-of-bitches!" -- James Coburn, in the finale of _The_President's_Analyst_

Close