Groups fight 'Super-DMCA' bills
By Dennis Sellers
The Tennessee Digital Freedom Network (http://www.tndigitalfreedom.org) — a confederation of IT professionals, students, and citizens with the mission of protecting the right of Tennesseans "to freely use digital technology in their lives" — is using its resources to oppose the new " Super-DMCA " bills proposed by the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America). In Tennessee this legislation has been proposed in the House and Senate as HB457 and SB213.
The " Super-DMCA " (S-DMCA, as in Super Digital Millennium Copyright Act) bill has already passed in eight states. If it passes in Tennessee, the bill will "have a very negative impact on citizens' freedom of speech, access to secure communications, and use of many networking technologies," according to the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network.
"It would give Internet service providers (ISP's) unprecedented control over what types of devices and software Tennesseans can use while connected to their systems, and give them power to sue users for thousands of dollars per day if they infringe on that control in any way," the organization says. "If this bill is enacted, Tennesseans will 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."
Tony Campbell, a Nashville Web designer (Southwestern/Great American Inc.) and Webmaster and forum administrator for the Tennessee group, said that HB457 and SB213 are bills that would affect almost all Tennesseans who connect their systems to the Internet.
"In a practical, cost-effective way, they would have to get permission from all their communication service providers before hooking up any device," Campbell told MacCentral. "If they didn't, they would automatically become felons. If this bill is enacted, tens of thousands of Tennesseans will become felons that very day, simply because they treat their Internet connection the same way they do their phone, electricity and water: as a utility."
Luke Kanies, a Unix consultant with Reductive LLC, and a member of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network, said that for a household of four that's using, for example, Comcast's broadband service [Comcast is an Internet Service Provider], the bills would raise their monthly price for each computer and possibly the router necessary to allow the extra computers to connect. At a minimum, this would raise the price by US$10 a month ($5 for each computer), but Comcast has the option of requiring the family to buy their router from Comcast, which would be at least $100. Plus, Comcast also has the right to charge an extra monthly fee for that router, he explained.
"If they are using another broadband service, then it's up to the service provider," Kanies said. "BellSouth [a phone and communications services company] supports this bill, so you can expect them to behave similarly. Other providers, like SpeakEasy.Net, specialize in letting you do what you want once you've acquired the service, so if the family uses them, they probably won't see significant changes as long as the service is available. There is very little competition in the consumer segment of the broadband market, so if the family in question does not like what they get, it is quite likely that their only option will be to cancel their service."
A businessman with a desktop and laptop system can expect to pay extra for the second device and possibly the router, but there'll be extra expenses if he wants wireless service in his house. Comcast currently sells a service in which a company rep comes to your house and installs wireless; the bills would allow Comcast to require that the businessman use Comcast's wireless service, instead of buying a device from Wal-Mart or CompUSA and installing it himself, Kanies said. This is probably at least $100 up front, and maybe $5-$15 a month, he added.
"And if the businessman uses something like VPN [virtual private network], Comcast can require that he use their VPN service, at whatever fee they feel like charging," Kanies said. "Again, there is very little competition in this segment of the broadband market, so it is unlikely the businessman will have much choice with respect to his service provider."
Jody Leavell, a Systems Administrator, Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, said there are still other effects to be considered, such as the use of the Internet for voice phone service.
"We know the products are out there on the market and some people wholly rely on them for voice communications," he said. "With this law, as I understand it, it could be possible for a communications service provider to not permit any such device, but ones they sell or lease to you. Also, they could potentially charge extra per phone per minute; it is really up to them and their terms of service agreement. Other potential consumer activities that may be affected would certainly include the use of any video or audio recording device. Certainly one can see why the MPAA is pushing legislation; they are getting the distribution channel to do their dirty work for them."
HB457 and SB213 are being presented as "Theft of Service" bills that "update[s] state law so that it comprehensively protects new broadband communication services from piracy and sabotage." However, they're actually much more "insidious" and can effect individuals who have more than one computer or use Internet security hardware/software (such as firewalls), as well as companies that use networking equipment to share Internet access using network address translation (NAT) or let employees connect from home using a VPN, according to the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network.
The confederation is hoping to rouse public opinion against HB457 and SB213 through letter writing and public shows of opposition. The Senate Judiciary Committee will have a hearing on the latter on Tuesday, May 20, at 3:30 p.m.
The Tennessee Digital Freedom Network is encouraging grass-roots activism: writing, calling and e-mailing their legislators, and encouraging their friends and coworkers to do the same. People think that the lobbyists have too much power, but sometimes a legislator simply chooses between the reasonable-sounding arguments of a lobbyist, and deafening silence from their own district, Campbell said.
"We want to encourage participation in the process. Write, e-mail, fax, and call your Senators and Representatives," Scott Kozicki, an independent consultant and member of the Digital Freedom Network added. "Let them know what you think of this legislation, regardless of what your opinion is. Talk with them about it. Show up for the hearings. Educate yourself on the issues. I firmly believe that the lawmakers are there to do The Right Thing, but when lobbyists and hidden agendas are their only support mechanisms, it's impossible for them to be successful."
He said that what motivates him to oppose these bills is simple: the telecom monopolies must be stopped. "Telecommunications should be the grease on the gears of massive economic, social, and intellectual progress for all humanity," Kozicki said. "Instead, anticompetitive behavior has caused these gears to seize. If we did nothing, we'd still be using two cans and string when it comes to innovation in telecommunications."
Despite their potential impact, S-DMCA bills have flown below the radar in most cases. Campbell said that the MPAA has been very organized and methodical in the way it has worked behind the scenes to get these bills passed. It has done this partly by having their bills presented as minor amendments to existing laws covering cable theft, he added.
"This bill is being sold as a cable theft bill," Kanies said. "We are repeatedly asked if our goal in opposing this bill is to legalize cable theft; the answer to that is obviously no, but it takes effort to get beyond that type of rhetoric to the real content of the bill, which is that it gives service providers the right to charge you for every device you connect to your lawfully acquired service, and to also determine which devices you can connect in the first place."
So few people know what's going on because they think they can trust the people that are voted in to office to do what's right, Aaron W. Dobbs, Network Services Librarian, Austin Peay State University, Clarksville, Tennessee, and a member of the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network said.
"Most folks don't want to know how sausage is made, because the process is gross and vaguely disgusting," he added. "Same with the law. We hope to get more people involved. We had, what many people in Nashville call, a huge turnout for the first hearing on April 2: just under 20 'concerned citizens,' three of whom got to speak. While 20 people, to jaded eyes in the capitol, is a huge turnout, I would hope more people, in addition to calling, faxing, and writing, show up in person to speak to their legislators. We (well, a plurality of us) voted them into office, and they need to realize that their decision on this could result in their replacement."
Tennesseans can find their own Senator or Representative's contact information, as well as more details, at the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network.
On a national level, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, EFF (http://www.eff.org), is opposing what it calls a "digital lock-down." Calling S-DMCA the product of "stealth lobbying efforts by the MPAA, these new measures are aimed at criminalizing the possession of what the MPAA calls "unlawful communication and access devices," but which are so broad that they could ban critical security and privacy tools online as well as restrict what machines you can connect to the cable, satellite, and Internet lines in your home, according to the EFF.
"The 'super-DMCA' measures represent special interest legislation that dramatically expands the reach of the federal DMCA, which has already put fair use, innovation, free speech, and competition in peril," said EFF Senior Intellectual Property Attorney Fred von Lohmann. "Communication service providers — meaning ISPs, cable companies, and providers of digital entertainment services — can use this legislation to restrict what you can connect to your Internet connection and cable or satellite television lines and can ban a variety of tools critical to protecting the anonymity and security of Internet users."
EFF "strongly opposes" these state super-DMCA bills as unnecessary and overbroad, he added. 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," the EFF opines.
Dennis Sellers is a Senior Editor at MacCentral, the world's largest online Macintosh news site.