MPAA's drive for state laws hits bump in Massachusetts

R. A. Hettinga rah at
Wed Apr 2 23:33:44 EST 2003

--- begin forwarded text

Status:  U
Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2003 23:30:12 -0500
To: Clippable <rah at>
From: "R. A. Hettinga" <rah at>
Subject: MPAA's drive for state laws hits bump in Massachusetts

Last paragraph says it all, I think...



MPAA's drive for state laws hits bump in Massachusetts

Paul Roberts ,
April 02, 2003, 15:50

Software engineers, academics and industry representatives gathered at the
Massachusetts State House on Wednesday to voice their opposition to an
effort by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to rewrite
provisions of state telecommunication laws.

The hearing, to discuss a bill backed by the MPAA, is evidence of growing
grassroots and industry opposition to the MPAA's state-level legislative
initiative, which has already amended laws in five states.

The proposed legislation, Massachusetts House Bill 2743, would change
elements of the Massachusetts General Laws covering telecommunications
fraud, broadening the scope of activities that qualify as criminal offenses
under the law and proposing stiff penalties and fines for law breakers.

The Massachusetts legislation uses language provided by the MPAA, according
to Angela McConney, legal counsel for the Massachusetts House Committee on
Criminal Justice.

That language is almost identical to the language found in similar bills
that are pending in a number of states including Texas, Tennessee,
Colorado, and Florida. The bills are part of an effort by the MPAA to
strengthen telecommunications theft laws in the states, according to Vans
Stevenson, senior vice president of state legislative affairs at the MPAA.

"This legislation is designed to update existing telecommunications
statutes on the books in (Massachusetts) and most states that were passed
twenty-some years ago," Stevenson said.

While updating legal language to account for the explosion in technology in
communications services and technology, the state level laws will also make
it easier for the MPAA and others to pursue cases against criminals, he

Wronged parties would not have to rely on the Justice Department and the
protections offered under the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)
to pursue cases, Stevenson said.

However, the broad wording of the bill is rubbing many in the information
technology and telecommunications industries the wrong way, according to
Sarah Deutsch, vice president and associate general counsel at Verizon
Communications Inc.

Initially perceived by the telecommunications industry as a communications
theft bill, the MPAA-sponsored legislation at first received little
attention, Deutsch said. However, industry organizations are increasingly
alarmed about some of the broad implications of the MPAA-sponsored bills.

Among other things, the MPAA legislation broadens the definition of the
term "communications service" to include both the content transmitted --
for example, downloaded song files -- and the medium over which they were

"This is really a theft-of-copyright bill and a piracy bill," Deutsch said.

Those kinds of copyright protections were already hammered out by the
federal government, copyright owners and other stakeholders in the DMCA,
which includes protections for Internet service providers such as Verizon,
according to Deutsch.

The MPAA laws are effectively end runs around the DMCA that include no
immunity for ISPs, she said.

Grassroots opposition to the MPAA-sponsored legislation is also growing,
due in part to the efforts of Edward Felten, a professor of computer
science at Princeton University.

Through his Web site, Felten and others have kept up a steady drum beat of
commentary on the perceived dangers of the MPAA-sponsored state
legislation. (See .)

Felten alleged that, as written, House Bill 2743 and others like it would
outlaw commonly used security tools such as firewalls and virtual private
network (VPN) software by declaring the encryption, decryption or
concealment of the "place of origin" of any communication to be illegal.

Those arguments are disputed by the MPAA's Stevenson, who noted that
language that outlaws the concealment of the "place of origin" of
communication has long been on the books in Massachusetts.

Nevertheless, the arguments have raised the eyebrows of some within the
information technology (IT) community in recent days, spawning at least one
news story on the possible implications of the MPAA's state-level

The increased attention to the MPAA's efforts was evident on Wednesday,
when representatives from the MPAA, the electronics industry, software
engineers and academics crowded a hearing room in the Massachusetts State
House to voice their opinions on House Bill 2743.

Speaking before the Joint Committee on Criminal Justice, Amy Isbell, vice
president of state legislative affairs at the MPAA, began by acknowledging
opposition to the wording of the bill and offering to compromise.

MPAA staff in Washington, D.C., were in the process of meeting with stake
holders including Internet service providers (ISPs) to draft amendments to
the wording of the legislation, Isbell said.

"We are looking forward to introducing amendments to keep this legislation
alive and address any concerns," she said.

Isbell was followed by a number of software and security experts opposed to
the MPAA legislation, including independent software developers and a
representative from the Free Software Foundation.

Software developer and security researcher Roger Dingledine told the
Committee that the proposed legislation would make illegal software he
designed to help Web browsers protect their personal information from being
captured by online marketing companies such as DoubleClick Inc.

Perhaps the most forceful opposition to the legislation came from John
Palfrey, executive director of The Berkman Center for Internet & Society at
Harvard University.

Calling House Bill 2743 a "bad idea," Palfrey attacked the proposed changes
as unnecessary special interest legislation that was not in the broad
interests of the state's residents.

Laws were already on the books that made computer hacking a crime and
allowed law enforcement to pursue telecommunications crimes. Instead of
helping in those efforts, the MPAA legislation would create even more
confusion in the already muddy arena of Internet law, with unknown
consequences, Palfrey said.

"I have no idea how far (House Bill 2743) would reach, but I know it would
reach far," he said.

The presence of so many technology experts, many sporting ponytails with
their jackets and ties, caught the attention of Committee members.

State Representative Reed Hillman asked Isbell whether a router that he
uses to connect four home computers to a single broadband Internet
connection would be a violation under the new law.

Isbell said that it would not, but that an amendment would be included to
clarify the issue.

Later, State Representative David Linsky wondered whether new criminal
statutes were even necessary.

"Are there cases out there that can't be prosecuted under current law?"
Linsky asked.

Despite the reservations of legislators and the impassioned pleas from
Internet denizens, the MPAA's biggest challenge may be overcoming a swell
of opposition from companies like Verizon as well as industry groups.

Speaking at the State House hearing Wednesday on behalf of the American
Electronics Association (AEA), Tara O'Donnell from the law firm of Donoghue
Barrett & Signal P.C. voiced "grave concern over the broadness of the
bill's language."

The AEA was worried that, as written, the law would "criminalize computers"
and potentially hold manufacturers liable if their products were used to
commit crimes, according to Marc-Anthony Signorino, technology policy
counsel at the AEA.

Verizon also submitted comments to the Committee opposing House Bill 2743,
according to Deutsch.

Verizon said that, as written, House Bill 2743 is too broad and treads on
ground currently covered by the DMCA. Verizon encouraged Massachusetts
legislators to take more time to study the bill carefully, she said.

The push back from other industry players may be a sign that the MPAA's
aggressive efforts to strengthen copyright protections at the federal and
state level are wearing the patience of other stakeholders in the sphere of
digital communications and commerce.

As a telecommunications company, Verizon is comfortable with Massachusetts
telecommunications fraud laws as they are currently written, according to

"The MPAA is the organization that is pushing the laws in all these states.
They're spearheading this, and it's primarily for their benefit and to
address their privacy and copyright agenda," Deutsch said.

That sentiment, along with those expressed at the Wednesday hearing, does
not bode well for the future of the MPAA legislation in Massachusetts,
according to one software industry expert in attendance.

"When you've got Verizon, the American Electronics Association, Harvard Law
School and the ponytail gang all against you, then you've got a problem,"
he said.
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

--- end forwarded text

R. A. Hettinga <mailto: rah at>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

The Cryptography Mailing List
Unsubscribe by sending "unsubscribe cryptography" to majordomo at

More information about the cryptography mailing list