May 29, 2017

Archives for March 2003

Super-DMCA Page Available

I have created a page at http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/superdmca.html with information about the state Super-DMCA bills and laws. I will update the page with status information as it comes in, and later with information about efforts to help educate lawmakers about this issue.

Super-DMCA Already Passed in Michigan

Alert reader Larry Blunk reports that the state of Michigan has already passed a set of super-DMCA laws. They will take effect on March 31. Here is the text of the three new laws: 1, 2, 3.

The ban on concealing the origin or destination of communications, whose drawbacks I had pointed out previously, is in the second of these laws. Other problematic aspects of the super-DMCA legislation are in the other laws.

Intent Requirements in the State Super-DMCA Bills

Several readers point out that the state super-DMCA bills contain language requiring an “intent to harm or defraud a communications service”, and they suggest that such a requirement makes the bills less harmful than I had said yesterday.

I disagree, for two reasons.

First, although some of the offenses created by the bills do require an “intent to harm or defraud”, the part of the bills to which I objected yesterday does not contain such a requirement. All that is required in the way of intent is an intent to conceal the origin or destination of a communication – and that intent would be inferred, presumably, if somebody took an action that had the predictable effect of concealing origin or destination.

Second, even if such language did apply to the part of the bills under discussion, I would still be worried (though less so). “Intent to defraud” doesn’t bother me, but “intent to harm” does, given the danger that “harm” could be construed broadly. In a competitive marketplace, people often take legitimate actions that harm the interests of one competitor. If I switch my lunch beverage from Pepsi to Coke, that action could be said to harm Pepsi; but surely my intent to switch beverages does not belong in the same category as an attempt to defraud Pepsi.