From: "Joseph M. Reagle Jr." <reagle@mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 May 1996 19:06:41 +0800
To: cypherpunks@toad.com
Subject: Georgia Internet Police
Message-ID: <9605062120.AA09638@rpcp.mit.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain




X-within-URL: http://www.clark.net/pub/rothman/ga.htm                           


   [IMAGE] 
   
      Needed: a first-rate lawyer who'll fight the Internet Police law in
      court. Click below on the "How We Can Educate" link for more info on
      constructive actions. 
      
      Return to NetWorld! Book | Other Musing on Intellectual Property
      How We Can Educate Pols, Olympic Boosters and Other Georgians | Links of
      Interest
      Contest: Write the Best "Night the Lights Went Out in Georgia" Parody
      
      The Internet Police Law: The Day the Sites Went Out in Georgia?
      
     David H. Rothman | rothman@clark.net
     
     Linking your Web site to anyone else's without permission? Be glad
     you're not in Georgia--or be worried if you are.
     
     Gov. Zell Miller on the morning of April 18 signed into a law a
     piece of imbecility that the Marietta Daily Journal had dubbed the
     Internet Police bill.
     
     House Bill 1630 may prevent Webfolk from linking from their
     homepages against the wishes of the linkees--at least if the other
     guys' names or logos are used.
     
     Is 1630 a belated April Fool's joke? I've heard of Net-dumb pols,
     but Georgia has out-Exoned Exon--and maybe even out-Doled Dole.
     Shari Steele, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation,
     wrote Gov. Miller before the signing: "The language of the bill
     would make it illegal to create a button on our web site with
     Wired's 'trade name' or 'logo' without first obtaining 'permission
     or authorization' from Wired magazine." Whoops: oh, please,
     Wired--don't sue me. Actually that would be the state's job; you
     see, the law would let Georgia throw your posterior in jail for up
     to a year.
     
     Live out of state? As of this writing it was unclear how much of a
     danger extradition would pose--maybe none, given the lunacy of the
     law. Then again, there are rumors that California and other states
     may replicate Georgia's stupidity.
     
     The morning the Guv signed the bill, I dropped by the State of
     Georgia Home Page. Under "Search Engines and other Web Services" I
     saw a link to Yahoo. I'm glad the Georgia folks can use Yahoo from
     down there, rather than having to start their own. Imagine Yahoo
     needing permission for every link with a trademarked name. And what
     about a page displaying the results of a Lycos search? Now that
     would be fun. Can you imagine the Lycos computer e-mailing every
     site brought up--asking permission--before it listed Web addresses?
     
     I visited Zell Miller's Web area. Without the least irony, a
     headline read: "Governor Miller's Technology Initiatives Thrive."
     The page bragged about computers in classrooms. Just don't let the
     little brats grow up to start Yahoo Kudzu.
     
     According to the EFF, the same law might make it illegal even to
     mention a company's name on the Web without permission. True? Just
     imagine what this could mean to an online newspaper reviewing
     another publication's Web site. Already a software company outside
     Georgia has used existing intellectual property law to bully a
     reviewer. I've said it once, and I'll say it again: The media are
     damned fools if they support intellectual property zealotry of the
     kind we've seen out of Capitol Hill recently. Goodbye, First
     Amendment. These are national issues, alas, not just problems with
     the Georgia drinking water.
     
     If nothing else, I suspect that the good folks at the AT&T
     Business Network--the ones who run LeadStory.com, a collection of
     the day's hottest stories from online newspapers--may have some
     thoughts on the Georgia bill. To add to the fun, when I dropped by
     Cox Newspapers' big Web site for the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, I
     saw a "Surf Less. Know More" ad from LeadStory.com.
     
     At the Atlanta site's Net News I just happened to read a report on
     a trademark infringement suit that BellSouth had filed against the
     an Internet directory called the Real InterNet Pages. Hmmm. Any
     connections here with the new law? And simply because BellSouth's
     print directories use the trademarked phrase "The Real Yellow
     Pages," is the company entitled to www.realpages.com--the smaller
     company's existing Web address? The Real InterNet Pages, after
     all, isn't saying, "www.realyellowpages.com." In any event one would
     hardly confuse the Real InterNet Pages with BellSouth; the pigmy
     tells visitors to its home page: "Not Affiliated, Associated or
     Connected with BellSouth or any BellSouth-related company."
     
     Coincidentally or not, the Internet Police bill was introduced by
     Don Parsons, a Net-innocent employee of BellSouth. According to the
     Conservative Policy Caucus in the Georgia House: "During floor
     debate, Rep. Parsons could not explain the concept of a link on a
     home page. It was clear to many that he had no idea of what the
     Internet was all about. Supposedly, his desire was to prevent
     'misrepresentation' on the Internet. Parsons admitted that he had
     never been on the Internet, except looking over a colleague's
     shoulder at work." One can understand, then, why many Netfolks
     wonder if Parsons' employer has encouraged him to squelch
     competition at a time when the Baby Bells envision a Web full of
     Yellow Pages. Bell South vehemently denies a connection between it
     and the Parsons bill. Whatever the case, however, the legislation
     would help the Parsons' employer.
     
     Oh, I've read Parsons' stated reasons for his law. But in guarding
     against fraud and protecting intellectual property rights, do we
     really want to toss out the First Amendment? Jeff Kuester, a Net-hip
     attorney of intellectual property in Atlanta, says: "We should
     certainly strive for effective protection of intellectual property
     on the Web, but not by destroying this crucial part of the
     information superhighway. These links let people move seamlessly
     from Web site to Web site. They're as crucial to the Web as bridges
     are to our nation's system of concrete-and-asphalt roads. If nothing
     else, we should avoid denying Netizens the free speech guaranteed
     outside cyberspace." While Parsons has denied that his law would
     make unauthorized links illegal, its wording would suggest
     otherwise.
     
     Criticizing Parsons' work, the Conservative Policy Caucus quotes
     the essence of HB1630 as it could affect links, and I'll pass on a
     rough extract with some tweaks of my own for the sake of clarity and
     precision: "It shall be unlawful for any person...knowingly to
     transmit any data through a computer network...if such data uses any
     individual name, trade name, registered trademark, logo, legal or
     official seal or copyrighted symbol to falsely state or imply that
     such person...has permission or is legally authorized to use such
     trade name, registered trademark..."
     
     Granted, some might say that you could assume implied consent if
     any material is up on an open medium like the Web and you want to
     link to it with appropriate identification by name. But the law is
     still a big threat, given the new legal liabilities it creates for
     journalists, publishers, activists and many others. Suppose your
     story online won't read like a puff piece. Will you need your
     target's goodwill before you can link to the site of a polluter or
     other recipient of negative publicity? And what about linking
     privately? Suppose you're on a local area network in the newsroom
     and want to share information with colleagues by way of an internal
     Web page. Will you require at least your target's tacit consent
     before you can do so? Exactly what does HB1630 mean by "a computer
     network," just the external variety? Not in my extract above was
     this additional language: "for the purpose of setting up,
     maintaining, operating, or exchanging data with an electronic
     mailbox, home page, or any other electronic information storage bank
     or point of access to electronic information." Sounds as if the
     Internet Police law won't delight the Society for Professional
     Journalists, Investigative Reporters and Editors or the Reporter's
     Committee for Freedom of the Press.
     
     Bill 1630 also contains other goodies, according to the valuable
     April 17 issue of EFFector Online and the EFF's Steele. For example,
     Ms. Steele says the bill could criminalize the use of pseudonyms;
     I'd suspect that's of interest to, say, American Online or to
     safety-minded parents who want their children to log on with fake
     names. Besides, just what's a "false" name? Ms. Steele writes of
     someone with the user name of "elvis" and says: "Even my own user
     ID, which is ssteele, does not clearly distinguish me from others
     with the last name of Steele and the first initial 'S.'"
     
     I myself am another good example of the identity issues that
     arise on a global computer network. My publisher insisted on calling
     my book NetWorld!, and it was logical for me to set up a NetWorld!
     Web site but guess what? If you do an Alta Vista search, you'll also
     find thousands of "NetWorld" mentions from unrelated "NetWorld"
     sites and the rest of the Web. Among the others are Peter's Networld
     from Peter Heneback, a Swedish foreign exchange student at West
     Anchorage High School in Alaska; NETWorld Market Place; NetWorld
     Publishing; NetWorld Systems; Networld +Interop, which, yes, has
     been known to hold expos down in Atlanta; and NetWorld Limited, a
     Hong Kong consulting company.
     
     And I'm to worry about other "NetWorlds" and "Networlds" from
     Alaska to Atlanta and Asia?
     
     While trademark law has its place, we need to allow for reasonable
     interpretations. I asked Prima Publishing to consult an attorney
     before it used NetWorld! on pulped wood. No problem, I heard. But
     what happens to my book's online version if I'm in Georgia and
     trademark fanatics prevail in court?
     
     There and elsewhere, politicians keep babbling that they'll get
     government off our backs. What bilge. If Georgia politicans respect
     citizens' rights, why is the high-tech community talking of a
     lawsuit against the Internet Police law? Alas, the Georgia state
     legislature won't meet again until next year, but meanwhile Zell
     Miller might speak out against his baby before it frightens away
     millions of dollars of high-tech business. Perhaps he can at least
     promise to ask his attorney general not to enforce the Internet
     Police law. As long as the law is still alive, I myself will do
     everything I can to warn Netfolks that Georgia is a risky place for
     them to do business right now.
     
     Meanwhile, I suspect that the Internet Police law will be like Jim
     Exon's Communications Decency Act. Many people will just ignore it,
     furthering breaking down the respect of Generation Net for
     politicians and bureaucrats in general.
     
      Return to Top of Page [IMAGE]
      
HOW TO PROTEST THE SILLINESS

     
       _______________________________________________________________
     
     
     
     The Internet Police bill--effective July 1, 1996--passed at least
     partly because politicians kowtowed to Big Bucks. Tell them they
     were wrong, that the bill will cost Georgia, that it's about as
     good for the state as Sherman's March was, that you'll tell your
     high-tech employer to stay the hell out of Georgia to avoid
     net.stupid regulations, that you'll think twice about attending the
     Olympics or buying goods that carry the Olympic logo.
     
     Let Georgia pols know that most Web sites thrive because of the
     ease of linking, not in spite of it. Time Magazine has zillions of
     links all over the Net. And without bureaucratic intervention,
     Netfolks already enjoy a wealth of phone- and Net-directories such
     as Yahoo's.
     
     Tell the Georgians that the Internet Police bill is a creature of
     special interests such as phone companies and, yes, politicians
     trying to crimp uppity rivals, including those in the Conservative
     Caucus. Some establishmentarians hated the idea of the
     conservatives' using the official Georgia seal on their Web site.
     This issue transcends ideology--my own politics are progressive.
     
     Protesting, you should avoid obscenity. Be angry in a rational and
     responsible way. Don't justify the anti-Net stereotypes that
     technophobes love.
     
     Georgia contacts
     
     [IMAGE] Gov. Zell Miller. I'd include an email address for Gov.
     Miller, but I couldn't find one--maybe I'm looking in the wrong
     locations on the Web, or perhaps in the wrong universe. His office
     phone number is 404-656-1776. Fax: 404-656-5948. Snail: Governor
     Zell Miller, State Capitol, Atlanta, Georgia 30334. It's just as
     well, actually, that you not use electronic mail since I doubt
     that the governor's office is that Net Aware. Otherwise why the Exon
     would he have signed this turkey?
     
     [IMAGE] Conservative Policy Caucus of the Georgia House of
     Representatives. You can email Georgia Representative Mitchell Kaye,
     the Webmaster, at webmaster@gahouse.com. Click here for Kaye's
     report on Parsons and the anti-Net law. Arm the Caucus with letters
     it can use to fight this atrocity. What the Net needs now, says
     Representative Kaye, is a court injunction against enforcement of
     the law. Anyone know a first-rate lawyer willing to work pro bono
     and make a name for himself or herself? If so, e-mail or phone
     Mitchell Kaye (770-998-2399), the legislator who so far has spent
     the most time and energy fighting the Internet Police law. Perhaps
     this case could be a natural for a group such as the American Civil
     Liberties Union or the Interactive Services Assocation, whose
     members include American Online, CompuServe and Prodigy, among
     others. One legislator has talked of corrective legislation, but
     according to Kaye's current thinking, a court challenge at this
     point would be more effective, since other politicians could water
     down a bill. At any rate, a bill couldn't be formally introduced
     until January 1996; and, says, Kaye, a court case could be the best
     approach. Stay tuned. Foes of the law are still sorting out their
     options as far as the best way to proceed.
     
     [IMAGE] E-mail addresses of members of the Georgia House, via the
     Conservative Policy Caucus. Remember, some of the people listed may
     be supporters of the Police Bill.
     
     [IMAGE] Names, addresses, home, office, and FAX numbers of state
     legislators. Click here and scroll down the list for contact
     information for Georgia House Speaker Thomas B. Murphy. Do not
     harass him--it'll just backfire. If you can manage, try instead to
     educate him; see if you can't save your anger for posts on the Net.
     
     [IMAGE] Don Parsons' phone number (770-728-8506) and FAX number
     (770-528-5754) and other contact info. Again, please avoid
     harassment! But do give him a piece of your mind; ideally you can
     fax Parsons, then email a cc: to Rep. Mitchell Kaye
     (mkaye@gahouse.com), a vehement critic of the Net Police law. First,
     read Don Parsons' defense of his baby. Among other things he writes
     that "Internet users - consumers, children, business people, clergy,
     etc., - have a right to expect that the Internet pages they visit
     are what they are presented to be." My response? Word on the Net
     circulates pretty quickly about frauds, and existing laws cover many
     situations. New, Internet-specific laws--against fraud or copyright
     violations--need to be much better crafted than HB1630 was. Above
     all, they must be infinitely more respectful of the First Amendment.
     
     
     [IMAGE] Georgia Attorney General Michael Bowers. His phone number is
     404-656-4585; his fax number, 404-657-8733; and his snail address
     is: Judicial Building, Atlanta, Georgia 30334.
     
     [IMAGE] State of Georgia Home Page. Poke around. Look for pressure
     points--people associated with tourism and other business. See
     below.
     
     [IMAGE] Georgia Department of Industry, Trade & Tourism, "Georgia's
     official state agency for developing new jobs and creating capital
     investment." Sign the guest book; register your company's lack of
     interest in relocating there while the Internet Police bill is in
     effect. Use the "Description of Business" field and ask that the
     Webmaster forward your opinion to policymakers.
     
     [IMAGE] Yahoo listings for 1996 Olympic Games. Use the "mailto's"
     (where you click to start writing a letter) and sign the guest books
     with protests against Georgia's medieval information policies.
     
     [IMAGE] 1996 Olympic Games Home Page. Give 'em a piece of your mind
     on the feedback page.
     
     [IMAGE] BellSouth's Olympic links. Yes, BellSouth is an official
     sponsor. So if the Olympic folks take awhile to get the point,
     you'll know why. Of course you might try complaining to BellSouth
     itself--the president is Carl E. Swearington, telephone
     770-391-2424; fax, 770-399-6355.
     
     [IMAGE] Cable News Network (CNN), whose Web site will be directly
     affected by the imbecility out of the state legislature. The
     feedback address is cnn.feedback@cnn.com. Give 'em permission to use
     your name and address on the feedback page. Oh, and while you're at
     it, you might ask CNN to forward your sentiments to Scott Woelfel,
     editor in chief of CNN Interactive. Tell him it's ok to link to
     this page, and suggest that the video part of CNN just might want to
     warn the world about the Internet Police bill.
     
     [IMAGE] E-mail, fax and snail addresses and phone numbers for the
     Georgia media--including the Atlanta papers and the Associated Press
     down there. From the Conservative Caucus.
     
     [IMAGE] Georgia Media List from Harden Political InfoSystems.
     Newspapers, magazines and broadcasters. Looks extremely
     comprehensive.
     
     [IMAGE] Thinking Right, a reader comment area of the Atlanta
     Journal. Speak up! Let Atlanta know that Georgia's on your mind!
     The "Piney Pete Sez" column of April 20 says of the Internet Police
     bill: "What prompted this action was not widespread abuse. It was
     one little gadfly, Rep. Mitchell Kaye, who's been using the great
     seal of Georgia on his conservative Website. Needless to say, Kaye
     is a Republican and consequently shut out of any highway largess,
     concrete or electronic."
     
      Return to Top of Page
      
      [IMAGE]
      
MORE LINKS

     
       _______________________________________________________________
     
     
     
     [IMAGE] Full text of the Internet Police bill.
     
     
     
     [IMAGE] Electronic Frontier Foundation.
     
     [IMAGE] April 17 EFF newsletter with details on the Internet Police
     bill.
     
     [IMAGE] Bell South Denies Lobbying for the Police Law. Rep. Don
     Parsons, sponsor of House Bill 1630, works for BellSouth; but the
     company wrote attorney Jeff Kuester a letter saying Parsons does not
     serve as a lobbyist--and that the actual lobbyists were "totally
     unaware" of the company's suit against the Real InterNet Pages. The
     letter said, "Bell South did not draft, sponsor, promote or lobby
     for 1630. Bell South took no position on the legislation whatsoever
     other than, when it was brought to our attention, to recommend an
     exemption from liability for telephone companies and Internet access
     providers who provide transmission services for their customers."
     BellSouth did say that "it is probably probably overkill and unduly
     complicating to make the act of trademark infringement,
     misrepresentation and passing off on the Internet a crime under
     state law." The company also offered observations on the law's
     effects on links--thoughts with which the Electronic Frontier
     Foundation would undoubtedly disagree.
     
     [IMAGE] The Prize-winning Web Page of Jeff Kuester, the Net-hip
     intellectual property attorney mentioned earlier, who also has an
     engineering background and is active in groups such as IEEE. You can
     bet that like Kuester, scads of other Georgians love the Net and are
     just as surprised and disappointed by the Internet Police law as the
     rest of us were. He has a page with relevant links about the law.
     Kuester (kuester@kuesterlaw.com) is working to bring state pols up
     to speed on Net law and technology, and he would like to expand his
     efforts at the national level. Send him a note if you're interested
     in helping out. A good cause! Note, too, the existence of a
     Congressional Internet Caucus. Education of policymakers is the best
     protection against Net-stupid legislation like HB1630. Perhaps even
     Parsons will see the light someday. Meanwhile, if you want to check
     out some first-class resources on the Net and intellectual property
     law, drop on by Kuester's site!
     
     [IMAGE] The Real InterNet Pages, the Net directory that the
     $18-billion BellSouth conglomerate is suing for alleged trademark
     infringement. BellSouth holds a trademark on the phrase "The Real
     Yellow Pages," but does that automatically entitle the company to
     "realpages.com" on the Net? Read why a BellSouth triumph could hurt
     you. The boys at realpages.com have put together a nice Web page
     with a yellow background ("we don't think they own the color yellow
     either"). E-mail your support to Don Madey at dmadey@realpages.com.
     Any lawyers out there willing to do pro bono? Publicity from such a
     case could be an excellent career-enhancer.
     
     [IMAGE] c|net News Article on the Police Law.
     
     [IMAGE] Georgia Cyberphobes, the Augusta Chronicle's editorial
     against the Net police bill--written just before Gov. Miller signed
     it. The Chronicle didn't see the HR1630's trademark-related
     language as a threat but objected to the attack on online anonymity.
     It called for Miller to vero the bill.
     
     [IMAGE] Editor and Publisher. He explains how links help
     electronic newspapers. Note: The just-supplied link will soon
     disappear, but when that happens, you might be able to find the
     column in his archives.
     
      Return to Top of Page
      
      [IMAGE]
      
YOUR OWN "NIGHT THE LIGHTS WENT OUT" PARODY? I'M LOOKING FOR THE RIGHT ONE

     
       _______________________________________________________________
     
     
     
     Who can come up with the best "Night the Lights Went Out in
     Georgia" parody-in the spirit of this site?
     
     Give it a shot. May 18 is the contest deadline, and I may extend
     it if Netfolks are too angry to concentrate long enough come up with
     a quotable parody. No prizes, just some exquisite notoriety.
     
     Please do not enter, of course, if you mind having scads of other
     Web sites link to your words.
     
     -David H. Rothman, rothman@clark.net
     
     
       _______________________________________________________________
     
      Top of Page | Return to NetWorld!
      
      [IMAGE]
      
     
     
     Linking Encouraged. No Permission Needed from Me, Especially
     if You're in Georgia!
     
_______________________
Regards,       Men govern nothing with more difficulty than their tongues,
               and can moderate their desires more than their words. -Spinoza
Joseph  Reagle      http://farnsworth.mit.edu/~reagle/home.html
reagle@mit.edu      E0 D5 B2 05 B6 12 DA 65  BE 4D E3 C1 6A 66 25 4E