May 21, 2003

I lied

Just checked in at Bubba's who doesn't see what the fuss over the Mini DCMA in Tennessee is all about.

Here is the house version of the bill, HB457.

A quick walk through the bill shows several troubling areas. The bill refers to "unlawful communications devices" repeatedly, but doesn't define them until section (c) 8.

(8) "Unlawful communication device" means any communication device
that is capable, or has been altered, modified, programmed or reprogrammed
alone or in conjunction with another device or other equipment so as to be
capable of acquiring or facilitating the acquisition of any electronic serial number,
mobile identification number, personal identification number or any
communication service without the consent of the communication service
provider.

Let's think about what this actually says. Any device that can connect to a communication services without the consent of the service is unlawful. That includes everything folks! Can a VCR acquire a cable signal without the consent of the transmitter. You betcha! It would be unlawful under this definition. Same for a Tivo. Heck, it's the same for a home theater sound system. Don't believe me? Let's look at the definition again, clarified a bit.

"Unlawful communication device" means any communication device
that is capable, or has been altered, modified, programmed or reprogrammed
alone or in conjunction with another device or other equipment so as to be
capable
of acquiring or facilitating the acquisition of any electronic serial number,
mobile identification number, personal identification number or
any
communication service without the consent of the communication service
provider.

Remove the extraneous verbiage, and it is clear that the bill outlaws any communications equipment that the cable company wants to declare unlawful.

That's a problem.

Now take a look at section e 2:

A violation of this section involving five (5) or more unlawful
communication or access devices is a Class D felony.

Count your VCR's Home Stereos, and TV's. Got more than 5? Then you too could be a class D felon.

But you actually have to do something wrong to get charged, right?

Let's check out section (f):

In any criminal prosecution or civil action under this section, any of the
following shall create an inference that the defendant intended to violate this section:
(1) The presence of an unauthorized connection of any kind between the
defendant's property and any network, system or facility owned or operated by a
communication service provider; or
(2) The presence on the defendant's property, or in the defendant's
possession or control, of any communication device which is connected in such a
manner as would permit the unauthorized receipt, interception, acquisition,
decryption, transmission or re-transmission of a communication service; or
(3) The defendant's possession of five (5) or more unlawful
communication or access devices for any purpose prohibited by this section.

Section 1 tells you that any unauthorized connection of any kind creates an inference of intent to violate the law. Run a splitter and a second cable line to the back bedroom, and you're a criminal. If you have 5 TV's or VCR's, you could be a felon. Section 2 tells you that if you do something with the signal that the provider doesn't like, say, use Tivo instead of their proprietary recorder, you're a criminal. Section 3 tells you that if you have 5 TV's and a VCR, you could be a criminal.

Basically, this bill as written allows your service provider to tell you what you can hook up to their cable, and what you can do with the signal. The wording of the bill allows them to declare basically any home electronic device as unlawful, a fact which brought out the CEA to oppose the bill. The bill also allows the cable company to define exactly which types of connections are authorized, and back up those determinations with the force of law.

Now I don't know about you, but I really don't trust my cable company with that much power. I still remember the bad old days when we had to rent a set top box from them, when they wanted to charge a separate fee for each room, when you had no choice of cable companies, and the only other options were rabbit ears or a big C band satelitte dish. This legislation seeks to drive us back to those bad old days.

For more info, go to the Tennessee Digital Freedom Network.

Posted by Rich at May 21, 2003 4:15 PM | TrackBack
Comments

Your key phrase is "The legislation seeks to drive us back to those bad old days".

Are they "seeking" or is it just "possible"? The difference lies between intent and poor wording. If you tend to think cynically about government, businesses, etc you'd think the former. If you're more willing to give the benefit of the doubt, the latter.

What evidence is there in this specific case that there's an intent to use the unclear language to make these devices unauthorized? Are you pulling from the set-top-box days, or is there another source?

Posted by: Barry on May 22, 2003 11:54 AM

I'm pulling directly from past experience with these same cable companies, and a careful reading of the bill in question.

Posted by: rich on May 24, 2003 11:50 PM
Post a comment