Originally posted by: tcsenter
Excuse me, but Dave has been providing links to back up his claims. You have not.
Oh yeah, about those 'links' and 'sources' Dave provides....
Samples from Texas SDMCA bill about to be passed anyday;
TV;
Makes skipping Commercials illegal thus outlawing devices such as Tivo and Re-playTV.
Utterly false. The Texas bills of interest are
HB2121 and
SB1116. In neither of those bills will you find
any language even pertaining to Tivo or Replay, nor remotely describing a device whose purpose is to permit the user to 'skip' commercials, let alone criminalizing the possession or use of TIVO or any equivalent device.
The Senate Bill is virtually identical to the House Bill, both are expressly defined as "relating to the criminal and civil consequences of conduct involving the theft of or tampering with
certain communication or information services." Bold emphasis mine. "Certain" communication or information services, which are then specifically described in the bill, not 'any sort of communication or information services anyone might be able to construe as a communication or information service no matter how far-fetched or unusual.'
Felony charges if you add more cable receivers in your home but only paying for one.
Utterly false.
The only reference to a felony in either bill amends
Title 7 Chaper 31.14 of the Texas Penal Code and is limited only to the "MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, LEASE, OR ADVERTISEMENT OF" a prohibited device, not the possession or use of any prohibited device. This section is strictly enhancing penalties for those engaged in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and leasing of prohibited devices for financial gain, not for there mere possession or use of any prohibited devices.
S.B. No. 1116
AN ACT
relating to the criminal and civil consequences of conduct involving the theft of or tampering with certain communication or information services.
SECTION 5. The heading to Section 31.14, Penal Code, is
amended to read as follows:
Sec. 31.14. MANUFACTURE, DISTRIBUTION, SALE, LEASE, OR ADVERTISEMENT OF COMMUNICATION DEVICE OR UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS DEVICE.
SECTION 6. Subsections (a), (b), and (d), Section 31.14,
Penal Code, are amended to read as follows:
(a) A person commits an offense if, with the intent to
defraud a communication service provider, the person intentionally
or knowingly manufactures, develops, assembles, imports into the
state, exports out of the state, licenses, distributes, advertises,
sells, or leases, or offers for sale or lease:
(1) a communication device with an intent to aid in the
commission of an offense under Section 31.12 or 31.13;
(2) an unauthorized access device; or
(3) plans or instructions for assembling or
manufacturing a communication device or unauthorized access
device, with the knowledge that another person intends to use the
plans or instructions for the purpose of committing an offense
under Subdivision (1) or (2) or under Section 31.12 or 31.13[, a
device, a kit or part for a device, or a plan for a system of
components wholly or partly designed to make intelligible an
encrypted, encoded, scrambled, or other nonstandard signal carried
or caused by a multichannel video or information services
provider].
(b) In this section:
(1) "Communication device," "communication service,"
and "communication service provider" have the meanings assigned by
Section 31.12.
(2) "Unauthorized access device" has the meaning
assigned by Section 31.13.
(d) Except as otherwise provided by this subsection, an [An]
offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. An offense
under this section is:
(1) a state jail felony if it is shown on the trial of
the offense that:
(A) the offense was committed with respect to
more than one but not more than 50 communication devices or
unauthorized access devices in a single criminal episode; or
(B) the defendant has been previously convicted
one time of an offense under this section or of an offense under
federal law or the laws of another state containing elements that
are substantially similar to the elements of an offense under this
section; or
(2) a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the
trial of the offense that:
(A) the offense was committed with respect to
more than 50 communication devices or unauthorized access devices
in a single criminal episode; or
(B) the defendant has been previously convicted
on two or more occasions of an offense under this section or of an
offense under federal law or the laws of another state containing
elements that are substantially similar to the elements of an
offense under this section.
--------
The above sections and subsections from SB1116 (Engrossed Version) contain the
only instances of the word 'felony' in either of the bills.
Chapter 31.12 of the Texas Penal Code deals with personal use or possession of a prohibited device (such as adding an additional cable receiver without permission from the cable company) and neither HB2121 nor SB1116 amend 31.12 in any way to add the word 'felony' to any part of 31.12.
DSL service;
You must only use the DSL Modem provided by the Telco and must load their DSL software that puts Spyware and Adware on your Computer otherwise you are committing a Felony crime.
Utterly false.
Again, the only felony class liability invoked by either bill is relating to those engaged in the manufacture, distribution, sale, and leasing of prohibited devices for financial gain, not for possession or use of any prohibited devices by an individual for personal use (31.12). Not that it is even true that you cannot use your own DSL modem or modem software, provided that you're not doing so to defeat bandwidth caps or limitations in order to steal bandwidth for which you're not paying (which one might argue is already a Class C misdemeanor by current Texas statute).
What is particularly funny is that I just chose to review the Texas bills at random to see how truthful or accurate Robert Costner's allegations were regarding what these bills do. Of course, it is by no coincidence or extraordinary stroke of luck that I found gross inaccuracies and lies on my first try. There is a documented pattern of lies and misrepresentation by anti-RIAA zealots. I knew I would find their claims to patently fraudulent, they always are.
Unlike any of the lying anti-RIAA websites Dave relies upon, I provide direct links to the text of the bills from the legislature itself so that anyone can go read the bills for themselves instead of 'trusting me'. I don't provide 'my own modified version' of the text then imply it is the 'actual unmodified' text of the bill as Daves sources do.
Shall I go on and refute the rest of Costner's tripe? Just looking for an excuse.
Facebook
Twitter