[NTLUG:Discuss] Texas: SB1116 / HB2121

[severian@pobox.com]

Rob,
   Now for the other side.  You are right that the ISP should be able to 
draw up their EULA in any way they want.  You can always stop doinfg 
business with them and go elsewhere.  What bothers me still about the bill 
is that it raises the penalty for violations of the EULA from a civil 
liability to a criminal offense.  I can't see any justification for 
that.  Why should one side of a civil matter such as  this be able to 
threaten the other side with jail time?  How does that benefit society?
Good day,
Ralph

In response to the welcome remarks of Rob Apodaca at 07:36 AM 5/1/03 -0400:

>Now it says "...with the intent to harm or defraud a communication
>service...".
>
>It would seem that the spririt of the law is to help ISP's enforce their EULA.
>INTENT is a very important word here because in order to be convicted of a
>crime outlined in this bill, it has to be proven that your intent was to 'harm
>or defraud'. To me, if the ISP authorizes only one machine, and you put a NAT
>router between your machine and the connection, then there is no 'Intent to
>harm or defraud'.
>
>If an ISP is so restrictive as to not allow you to put multiple computers on
>one connection, then that sucks - but that is their choice to make. One can
>always change ISP's.