[NTLUG:Discuss] [ms.g@noitacude.com: [sb1116] ALERT: Texas "super DMCA" movingthrough the legislature]

[jeremy]

Such broad language places law making in the hands of the corporations
that the bill is meant to "Protect".  This bill is a proxy.
It yields, to the corporation, the letter of the law and for
all practical purposes, it's interpretation.  The EULA defines
"defraud" and thus, your guilt.  

I agree that an ISP should have some form of protection against theft of
service.  But not in the form of power to govern our personal property
through some Draconian EULA. Are there any ISPs speaking out against the
letter of this bill?


This bill is a test of our will.



-Jeremy


On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 16:26, David A Venable wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2003, Allen Flick wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> > The bill creates new crimes for:
> >        1.Obtaining a communication service without authorization from or payment to the service provider.
> >        2.Connecting a device to a communications system with intent to defraud.
> >        3.Modifying a communication device provided by the communication service provider with intent to defraud.
> >        4.Possessing a communication device or unauthorized access device with intent to defraud.
> >        5.Preparation or publication of "plans or instructions" for such devices.
> 
> I really haven't made up my mind about this particular bill. On one hand, 
> having a background in network and system security, I'm looking forward to 
> having some new ammunition to throw at the people who are out to break 
> into my systems and steal the service that I work hard to provide. On the 
> other hand, proving "intent to defraud" may be more difficult than it 
> sounds. I do not want to immediately want to discount this bill because 
> some label it as one of the "Super DMCA's" that may states are looking at 
> adopting.
> 
> Dave
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> https://ntlug.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss