Research and commentary on digital technologies in public life
The Super-DMCA bills are based on model legislation that has been circulated by the MPAA. I now have the text of the model legislation (Word format; PDF), along with a summary of it also circulated by MPAA (Word format; PDF).
Predictably, the summary makes no mention of the ban on concealing message origin or destination.
The Colorado Senate’s consideration of their Super-DMCA bill, originally scheduled for yesterday, has now been deferred until April 7. There is some indication this may have been due to calls from constituents about the bill. In any case, the delay gives Colorado residents more time to contact their representatives and explain the problems with the bill.
Internet security guru Steve Bellovin proposed today an important new Internet standard, RFC 3514, which creates a new “evil bit” in Internet Protocol packet headers. The evil bit is required to be set in all malicious packets. RFC 3514 fully examines the ramifications of this innovative proposal, including a discussion of what existing systems must do to maintain their current behavior.
Definitely a classic in the genre.
Louis Trager at the Washington Internet Daily reports that Super-DMCA bills have already passed in several states:
The low-profile lobbying effort was under way about 2 years before it burst into the open in recent days. Legislation supported by MPAA was enacted in [Delaware] and [Maryland] in 2001 and in [Illinois], [Michigan] and [Virginia] last year, MPAA Senior VP Vans Stevenson said…. A different version was enacted in [Pennsylvania] in 2000, Stevenson said.
The story further quotes Stevenson as saying that bills are “pending” in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, South Carolina and Texas. Others are watching bills in Oregon and Tennessee, Trager reports.
I have updated my Super-DMCA status page to reflect this new information.
Most of the reponses to my super-DMCA postings have been supportive, but a few people have disagreed. Some of the disagreements say, essentially, that there is no problem, because the bills are intended as anti-piracy measures, to prevent people from using cable, phone, or wireless service without paying.
(Let me put any doubts to rest by saying right now that people should be willing to pay for the service they receive. Jacking into the cable-TV network without paying for it is wrong, and I am happy to see reasonable punishments imposed on those who do it. If that were all these bills did, I wouldn’t object.)
In tech policy debates, we often see arguments about intentions crowding out discussion of the concrete effects of an action. It’s easy to see why intentions talk can be attractive for some participants. For one thing, it’s a game the whole family can play, regardless of their level of technical sophistication. There’s none of that boring, geeky talk about how networks operate and why encryption is used this way or that. Your arguments fit on a bumper sticker, and they’re fully reusable.
The other benefit of the good-intentions argument is that it’s usually true. In my limited engagement with the political process, it has seemed to me that everybody sees themselves as working for the public good, though they may naturally see the public good through the lens of their own self-interest. But if good intentions are so common, then their presence is unremarkable and doesn’t really distinguish you from the other side of the debate. Still, intentions talk is surprisingly common.
All of this would be harmless if politics were just a sequence of symbolic gestures. But of course we know that it isn’t. Citizens have to live with the consequences of well-intentioned but poorly drafted laws. We saw it with the DMCA, and we’ll see it again. The focus belongs on what these bills actually say, and what they would actually do.
