[ale] [Fwd: [EFGA] GA S-DMCA hearing report (long)]

Geoffrey esoteric at 3times25.net
Sun Apr 27 00:52:02 EDT 2003


A good discussion about what when on at the State Capitol regarding the 
S-DMCA bill.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [EFGA] GA S-DMCA hearing report (long)
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 00:35:27 -0400
From: Scott M. Jones <scott at aprr.org>
To: ale at ale.org
Reply-To: action at efga.org
To: action at efga.org

On Wednesday, April 23rd, I went down to the Georgia State Capitol (the
"Gold Dome") to testify against House Bill 867, also known as the "Super
DMCA".  I was there to represent Electronic Frontiers Georgia, a local
grass-roots activist organization interested in technology issues.

This bill is part of a series of bills being introduced in each state
across the country by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
These bills were motivated by the MPAA because of fears over "piracy",
i.e. unauthorized Internet distribution of copyrighted works.  Our
concern is that the bill is overly broad and prohibits a wide range of
activities that should not be considered a threat to the MPAA or other
copyright holders.

The hearing was on Wednesday, April 23, 2003, at the "Gold Dome", in
room 230.  Four members of the Public Utilities Committee were present:
"Coach" Williams (the chairman), Don Parsons, Jack Murphy, and one other
member whose name I did not get.  The bill's sponsor, Rep. Rich Golick
(34th district/Marietta area, see
http://www.cviog.uga.edu/Projects/gainfo/h_metro.htm) was there at the
beginning of the hearing but left as speakers were testifying against
the bill.  There were at least 10 people on our side of the room (the
"opposition").  A number of people were on the other side of the room
(6-8), but they never spoke on the bill.

Rep. Golick opened the hearing with a conciliatory tone, acknowledging
that there were possible unintended consequences with the bill as
originally drafted, and offering to work with the technology community.
Before we were allowed to speak, the committee had several pointed
questions for Rep. Golick.  He was asked to name two incidents that the
bill would protect against and could not name even one.  He was also
asked why a state bill was necessary when laws exist at the federal
level to protect against copyright violation.  Also, the committee
seemed dubious of the severe penalties required by the bill.  Rep.
Golick defended the bill as a tool to combat new forms of piracy in the
Internet age.  He acknowledged unintended consequences and expressed a
willingness to work with the technology community once again.  He seemed
a bit nervous and unprepared for the opposition.  He was reading from
printed material while defending the bill.  After the first expert
testified (Professor Hans Klein of Georgia Tech), Rep. Golick hurriedly
excused himself, and the hearing continued in his absence.

After the initial questions from the committee to Rep. Golick, the
"experts" were allowed to speak.  We had about 6-7 speakers, all of whom
were opposed to the bill.  Professor Hans Klein of Georgia Tech went
first, and spoke of undesirable societal shifts that could be brought
about by the bill.  Greg Greene, a lobbyist for the American Electronics
Association (http://aeanet.org), spoke about grave concerns from the IT
industry if the bill were allowed to pass.  I spoke next, representing
EFGA.  After I was finished, several local IT professionals spoke out
with concerns about their jobs and the effect on technology in the wake
of the bill.  The hearing lasted an hour.

Here are some of my talking points from my notes:
- I opened by saying that EFGA had joined with the ACLU of Georgia
several years ago to oppose a law that had been passed that had the
unintended consequence of outlawing pseudonyms on the Internet.  We
filed a legal motions along with ACLU/GA and had the bill enjoined.
- I acknowledged "carve-outs" I had recently learned about for Internet
routers and still insisted that the bill was too broad.  I talked about
a "tar pit" of unintended consequences.
- I called it a technology control bill, not an anti-piracy bill or
cable theft bill.
- I mentioned that it would let the vaguely defined "service providers"
decide at will whether any device connected to their network was legal
or illegal.  I also mentioned that all devices are illegal by default
and that we will all technically be in violation until our service
providers supply a list of approved devices.
- I said that we felt (as EFGA) that the bill is a protectionist bill
that protects the MPAA against progress and innovation more so than piracy.
- I brought up the VCR and said that 20 years ago, the MPAA felt very
threatened by the VCR, now they make the majority of their money from
video.  This played very well to the committee, I think it's an
excellent talking point.
- A point that I missed is that the bill privatizes enforcement against
piracy and potentially puts the service providers in the role of being
enforcers.  The goal would be to push enforcement against piracy onto
the state level and into private hands, despite already strained state
budgets and limited resources of ISP's and other service providers.
This is effectively getting someone else to fight the MPAA's war and in
essence take all the casualties (expense).
- Another point I wanted to make but did not was the bill is a wolf in
sheep's clothing.  Why does a bill that is being put up as an
anti-piracy bill look like it protects cable transmission facilities?
Even I was confused by it on first reading.  It is deliberately
deceptive and very clever.
- I asked that technology people (experts) be involved in technology
bills.  The committee seemed receptive.
- I closed by mentioning that the author of LaBrea (an anti-virus tool
that fights the Code Red and Nimda viruses) had withdrawn his tool
because the Illinois S-DMCA was passed verbatim and the tool author was
afraid of being prosecuted under the Illinois statute.  (see
http://www.hackbusters.net)
- Another good point that I didn't have time for is the incredibly
draconian penalties, both civil and criminal.  A math example is
instructive (two illegal devices used over a year, compute the penalties).

I really flew through the points mentioned above.  They asked me to keep
it to 3 minutes and I took more than 5.  I was easily the most extreme
speaker and they had no questions for me.  The author of the law that
EFGA had enjoined (Don Parsons) was present on the committee.  He
took exception to EFGA's interpretation of the law that was enjoined,
and stated his objections in front of the committee, but he later
apologized to me after the meeting.  I think we could have a good
working relationship in the future.

We have been told by everyone I've asked that the bill will not pass in
this legislative session and will be debated over the summer.  There is
some risk that we may have a special summer session so we will have to
be vigilant if this happens.  The committee chairman ("Coach" Williams)
asked for my card (oops!, we don't have cards, but I was being taken
seriously!).  I left my phone number instead.  I think a letter to his
office would be appropriate once the legislative session is over and
things can settle down. "Coach" Williams also promised to ask his son,
who is an IT professional, about the bill.  I take this as an
encouraging sign.  I also gave a copy of the EFF white paper on S-DMCA
to each committee member (see
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/states/200304_sdmca_eff_analysis.php).

I suspect that we may need to be able to offer a less troubling
alternative over the summer.  I am actively soliciting ideas for a less
troubling bill that we can live with.  (Quoted from CFP 2003 at
http://cfp2003.org/: "You can't beat something with nothing.")

Some tips for activists in other states who want to oppose this bill in
initial hearings:
1. Be aware that sponsors of the bill may play games with the time of
the hearing.  They may change the time of the hearing at the last minute
to reduce attendance by those who oppose the bill.  Our hearing was
rescheduled twice.  Call the state capitol and reconfirm the time the
day before the hearing and again on the morning of the hearing.  Be
ready to go down to the capitol on a moment's notice if the time is
moved up.
2. Dress like you mean business.  Suit and tie are the norm in state
capitols across the nation.  I'm sure I was taken more seriously because
I dressed like I meant it.
3. The more speakers the better.  10 speakers talking 3 minutes each is
far better than one speaker talking for 30 minutes.  Even if you don't
have a time limit, keep it to 3-5 minutes (assume a short attention
span).  If that's not enough time, split up your speaking points among
several speakers and have other people cover your points.
4. Academics and industry representatives who can attend will help your
credibility.  Unfortunately, a bias may develop if only college students
and 20-somethings testify.  Let the high profile speakers go first.

Scott M. Jones
Electronic Frontiers Georgia
Sunday, April 27, 2003


*
To join or be removed from this list, send a message to 
majordomo at efga.org with
the message body of SUBSCRIBE action or UNSUBSCRIBE action



-- 
Until later: Geoffrey		esoteric at 3times25.net

The latest, most widespread virus?  Microsoft end user agreement.
Think about it...

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale





More information about the Ale mailing list