[KLUG Advocacy] An informal legal view of the no NAT law...

[advocacy@kalamazoolinux.org]

I have asked three attornies to take a look at the link supplied as part
of the /. story posted by Andrew Thompson a couple of days ago:

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-540c-amended

Which is the text of the new law.


I have received the first response, which is something of an informal reaction,
but useful in any case....
------- Forwarded Message

Essentially it covers theft, i.e. piracy, of telecommunications service
from providers.  The "conceal" part is puzzling though, if I'm a judge I
probably throw up my hands and say I don't know what the heck they are
trying to prohibit and just refuse to enforce it.  

What it means is that when you connect to a telecommunications provider,
your contract should specify what you may and may not do with it, and
you need to abide by that.  Probably everyone should review their
contracts to make sure they say what you intend and don't prohibit what
you mean to do.

There is one slightly sneaky aspect to the legislation.  It requires
"express" authority to do anything with the service.  Normally you could
safely assume that you could do anything reasonable if it isn't
prohibited, but this law turns that around and requires explicit
authority for anything you do.  So yes, contracts need to be reviewed
and rewritten.  

But as I say, this is nothing unusual.  Most laws make everything
illegal and then just leave it up to prosecutors to decide who they want
to put in prison.

------- End of Forwarded Message

I will post others as I can, when they appear.

							Regards,
							---> RGB <---