Re: MPAA draft state super-DMCA amendment

I think you're quite right about the chilling effect -- when I first read the 
bill, it struck me as a ready-made SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit(s) Against Public 
Participation) mechanism.
If some corporation wanted to silence me via a civil action under H.2743, the 
teeth are there: seizure of equipment; threat of $gazillion/day fines; the 
towering cost of the legal representation necessary to prevail against a 
multinational corporation.  Now, a court might determine after the fact that 
"intent" was absent and that I've done no wrong, but in the meantime, my 
hardware is gone and the lawyer's taxi meter is still running.  The MPAA need 
only subject one or two folks to this kind of treatment before one decides 
not to put those instructions for booting Plan 9 on TiVO up on one's website.


On Thursday 03 April 2003 18:31, David Turner wrote:

> chilling effect, because there's a private right of action.  Taking
> MythTV as an example, skipping commercials could be considered
> "defrauding" a communication service provider.  General time and space
> shifting might also, if prohibited by some user agreement (probably,
> future pay TV services will come with such agreements).
>
> Any other comments?

--
http://www.offthehill.org/~dan