August 29, 2016


Tennessee Super-DMCA: It’s Baaaaaaack!

The Tennessee Super-DMCA is back. Here’s the text of the latest version.

Like the previous version, which died in a past legislative session, this bill looks like an attempt to broaden existing bans on unauthorized access to cable TV and phone service. The old version was much too broad. The new version is worded more carefully, with exceptions for “multipurpose devices”. I haven’t read it carefully enough to tell whether there are remaining problems.

Tennessee Digital Freedom is a good source for information and updates on this bill.


Texas Super-DMCA Apparently Dead

Louis Trager at the Washington Internet Daily reports that the Texas Super-DMCA bill appears to be dead, as this year’s legislative session ended without any action on the bill. There is still a small risk that it will be considered in special session, but the governor’s office says he does not intend to call such a special session. The Texas legislature is not scheduled to meet at all in 2004, so the bill appears to be dead there until at least 2005.

The is another significant victory for Super-DMCA opponents, along with the veto of the Colorado bill, and the withdrawal of the Tennessee and Oregon bills by their sponsors.

Trager quotes MPAA Vice President Vans Stevenson as saying that “Time is on our side. We have all the time in the world.”

Apparently MPAA will be patient, in the hope that opponents will tire of the struggle, or maybe in the hope of finding new opportunities to introduce stealth bills. That may be MPAA’s best hope, since the bills have fared poorly wherever open debate on their merits has been allowed.


Colorado Governor Vetoes Super-DMCA

Colorado governor Bill Owens has taken the Rocky Mountain News’ advice and vetoed his state’s Super-DMCA bill. Linda Seebach writes:

In his veto message [Owens] said the bill “could also stifle legal activity by entities all along the high tech spectrum, from manufacturers of communication parts to sellers of communication services.”

He urges the legislature, if it returns to this topic in the next session, “to be more careful in drafting a bill that adds protections that are rightfully needed, but does not paint a broad brush stroke where only a tight line is needed.”


Super-DMCA Update (Texas)

The Texas version of the Super-DMCA has been passed by the relevant committees in both the state House and Senate. It will probably come to a vote in the Senate later this week. If you’re a Texas resident, this would be good time to contact your state senator!


Florida Super-DMCA Back On the Fast Track

Giles Hoover writes that the Florida version of the Super-DMCA has been put on a fast-track “Special Order Calendar”, to be voted on tomorrow. Florida residents, call your representatives and weigh in on this bill!


Texas Trying to Sneak Through Super-DMCA

The Texas state legislature has reportedly suspended its rules today in order to consider the Super-DMCA legislation without the usually-required five days advance notice. This looks like an attempt to get the bill passed without allowing opponents a chance to properly debate it.

The legislative hearing is expected to start around 6:00 PM (Central time) today.


LaBrea Unavailable Due To Illinois SuperDMCA

Tom Liston, the author of the award-winning LaBrea security software, has announced that he will no longer make LaBrea available, because of concerns over the Super-DMCA, which has already become law in his native Illinois.

Network administrators can use LaBrea to set up a kind of virtual tarpit that entangles attempts by outsiders to scan their networks. (Network scanning is the online equivalent of walking down a hallway and trying to turn all of the doorknobs you find.) LaBrea uses a clever bit of indirection to trap scanners. Unfortunately, that indirection involves concealing the source and destination addresses of some network packets, so it raises Super-DMCA concerns.

I’m sure the supporters of the Super-DMCA in Illinois didn’t know that network scanning can be frustrated by a subtle method involving the concealment of packet addresses. They didn’t mean to ban LaBrea. But they may have done so accidentally. That’s what happens when you enact overbroad technology regulation.



This week, the MPAA reportedly has narrowed its Super-DMCA legislation yet again, this time to add special carve-outs to protect ISPs and telephone companies. This is supposed to improve the bill.

Actually, the carve-outs probably make the bills worse. One of the principal criticisms of the previous version is that it was too tilted in favor of communication service providers – a category that includes ISPs and telcos. Tilting the bill even further, by giving ISPs and telcos special protections, won’t resolve the problems with the bills.

In general, the existence of specialized carve-outs is a warning sign that a bill is overbroad. A carve-out is necessary when a bill’s original language is so broad that it would impact common, legitimate practices. Perhaps, in theory, we could enumerate all of the legitimate practices that would be banned by an overbroad bill and then create a carve-out for each one. In practice, though, this just isn’t going to happen. What will happen instead is that important interest groups, such as large established industries, will get their carve-outs, and others won’t. And the technologies of the future – the ones that haven’t been invented yet – won’t have anyone to speak on their behalf, and so won’t get the carve-outs they need.

A basic tenet of software engineering is that it’s better to get the design right in the first place than to do a sloppy job and patch up the problems later. Patched designs tend to be buggier and less robust than solidly built ones, because patched designs tend to fail whenever something unexpected happens. Apparently this principle applies to law as well as to code.


The MPAA’s Latest

Some assertions demand a detailed rebuttal, and others just speak for themselves.

A story by Louis Trager in today’s Washington Internet Daily quotes MPAA Vice President Vans Stevenson on their next revision of the Super-DMCA:

Anyone who opposed the bills must be “against shoplifting laws that would punish someone from stealing a movie at Blockbuster,” [Stevenson] said. The measure is a test of “whether you subscribe to the moral compass this country was founded on,” he said.


What’s the Goal of the Super-DMCA?

One of the mysteries surrounding the Super-DMCA is what its purpose might be. The arguments in favor of it are all vague, amounting to nothing more than “If you dislike piracy, you should support this bill.”

There are, of course, plenty of laws that already ban various types of “piracy.” There are laws against computer intrusions, laws against fraud, laws against eavesdropping on telecommunications, and laws against theft of cable TV and phone services. With all of these laws on the books, what illegitimate telecom behavior is left to ban?

Super-DMCA advocates have conspicuously failed to answer this question. They have failed to put forth any specific improper acts that would be banned by the Super-DMCA and are not already illegal. At the Massachusetts hearings last week, for example, the MPAA lobbyist who spoke could not give even one example of an illegitimate but otherwise-legal act that the bill would ban.

Also notable has been the silence of the law enforcement community. The Massachusetts hearing was attended by a representative of the state attorney general’s office, who had come to testify on behalf of a bill on another topic. This representative did not speak on behalf of the Super-DMCA. Why? Presumably because law enforcement already has the tools it needs to prosecute the bad guys.