| Contacts: | Jeff Joseph tel: 703 907-7664 e-mail: jjoseph@CE.org |
Jenny Pareti tel: 703 907 7079 e-mail: jpareti@CE.org |
CEA Testifies Against Texas "Theft of Service" Bill
Urges Texas Lawmakers to Reject Anti-Consumer Legislation
| Arlington, Virginia | 5/6/2003 |
A "theft" of cable and Internet service bill currently under consideration in the Texas State Legislature is overly broad and threatens the manufacture, sale and use of computers, televisions, personal video recorders and other products, according to Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) Senior Director of Technology Policy, Doug Johnson. Johnson made his comments today as he appeared before the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee to testify against the bill (S.B. 1116).
The Senate Bill, titled "An Act Relating to Theft of Communications Services," is promoted by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) as addressing theft of cable and Internet service, but is opposed by consumer groups, retailers and the consumer electronics industry as being ambiguous, overly broad, anti-consumer and anti-technology.
"If cable and Internet service theft is truly the issue, this legislation is not the solution," Johnson said. "CEA does not support this bill, and I am informed that the Consumer Electronics Retailers Coalition (CERC), which includes major retailers such as RadioShack, Best Buy, Circuit City and Sears, also vigorously oppose it. Along with them, and a wide range of consumer and technology groups, CEA urges the Criminal Justice Committee to issue an unfavorable report on S.B. 1116."
According to CEA, enactment of a bill such as S.B. 1116, would result in manufacturers, retailers and their customers being concerned about potential criminal status for activities that today they take for granted, such as connecting a consumer electronics product to the Internet, or allegedly 'unauthorized' uses on a home network."
Johnson pointed out that S.B. 1116 is so extreme as to define devices possessed by one individual as "unlawful" based solely on subsequent usage by another individual. "If a product is used by even one person to infringe," he explained, "any other consumer or retailer in possession of that product could be subject to criminal penalties. These unknowing parties would then have to defend against criminal charges based on their 'intent' as imputed by their mere possession or marketing of the products. The concept is simply preposterous and must not be adopted as Texas - or any state's - law."
Additionally, Johnson noted, "S.B. 1116 portends criminal liability for simple harm to a communications service provider, or showing intent to defraud. Despite the fact that both of these crucial words are left undefined in this bill, any limitation on exposure to prosecution or civil suit for theft depends on these words. Because an individual's state of mind is difficult to prove, most states have doctrines of constructive fraud, which allow proof, even in criminal cases, with no showing of actual intent at all. Under such an interpretation, a consumer who attaches legal products to a broadband network could be subject to criminal penalties if the device is prohibited or not specifically permitted by the service contract.
"CEA also continues to ask, if this bill is really about unlawful acquisition of a service, then why does it cover the audio and video programming content as well, and "transmission" and "retransmission" of such content? These are subjects that are controversial under federal copyright law and have not been state law issues. Moreover, such transmission only occurs after a consumer has lawfully acquired the signal or the content, yet the consumer may still be held criminally liable, or face massive civil liability."
Johnson concluded by noting that the MPAA model legislation, which has been adopted in S.B. 1116, would impose Draconian civil and criminal penalties vastly disproportionate to the conduct of the person charged with violations. He also said that while some early suggestions from consumer electronics manufacturers were accepted in the MPAA model legislation, most have not been.
"Proponents of these bills have tried to paint them as non-controversial, and have claimed that they accommodate consumer electronics concerns and enjoy broad support in the industry," he said. "Neither is the case. Instead, CEA continues to call on all state legislatures to oppose these overly broad bills and to demonstrate support for consumers, competition and innovation - all of which stand in jeopardy under bills like S.B. 1116."
CEA currently is fighting for consumer fair use rights in 10 states that are considering 13 bills modeled on MPAA's so-called communications security legislation, including Texas - California, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Oregon, South Carolina and Tennessee.
About CEA:
The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) is the preeminent trade association promoting growth in the consumer technology industry through technology policy, events, research, promotion and the fostering of business and strategic relationships. CEA represents more than 1,000 corporate members involved in the design, development, manufacturing, distribution and integration of audio, video, mobile electronics, wireless and landline communications, information technology, home networking, multimedia and accessory products, as well as related services that are sold through consumer channels. Combined, CEA's members account for more than $85 billion in annual sales. CEA's resources are available online at www.CE.org, the definitive source for information about the consumer electronics industry.
CEA also sponsors and manages the International CES - Defining Technology's Future. All profits from CES are reinvested into industry services, including technical training and education, industry promotion, engineering standards development, market research and legislative advocacy.