Legislature(1993 - 1994)
01/24/1994 01:15 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 315 - THEFT OF SUBSCRIPTION TV SERVICES Number 710 ERIC MUSSER, Legislative Aide to Rep. Brian Porter, Prime Sponsor of HB 315, testified that HB 315 was introduced primarily to put in statute penalties for wrongful use or misuse or theft of subscription cable services. He described Section 1, which amends the definition of the crime of theft to add theft of subscription cable service to the statute. He said Section 2 amends the definition of the crime of theft in the third degree to add theft of cable services under the statute; Section 3 proposes dealing with actions taken knowingly in order to obtain the authorized interception receipt or use of a program or other service provided by a subscription service, and would also prohibit the unauthorized manufacturing and distribution or sale of like acts; and Section 4 essentially sets out the definitions used in the bill. MR. MUSSER stated that two questions have come up regarding HB 315. One is whether the term inductively was a term of art or actual necessity. He explained that it is an industry term. The second question regards redundancy in the language of the bill. Number 756 REP. PHILLIPS expressed surprise that legislation of this sort was necessary in Alaska, and said the sponsor statement refers to $1 million in theft a year. He asked how that figure was justified. Number 772 MR. MUSSER explained that the value of the theft was determined by looking at the availability of pay per view, premium channel-type movies to a subscriber. He cited figures that potentially cover the magnitude of the problem. Number 792 REP. PHILLIPS asked if the bill was consistent with legislation in other states. Number 795 MR. MUSSER replied yes, and said that Alaska is one of only three states without this type of statute. REP. DAVIDSON questioned the need for the legislation. He asked what the problem was with the enforcement gap, and what people are stealing. Number 820 MR. MUSSER replied that Alaska's current statute is very broad and too vague, and is unenforceable as currently written. He said HB 315 would lay out the crime and penalties for theft of subscription services. Number 849 REP. KOTT asked if this legislation would prevent someone from using their own descrambler. TAPE 94-7, SIDE B Number 000 GARY HAYNES, Vice President of Operations, Prime Cable of Alaska, displayed for the committee copies of electronic magazines he bought in Anchorage with articles showing how to unscramble and descramble cable. He detailed the problem and cost to cable companies caused by theft of services. Mr. Haynes said the National Cable Television Association has published their best guest on cost of theft as $4.7 billion nationally. Number 130 VICE CHAIR JAMES said she thought a cable system was connected to a cable and asked how the box gets the information off of the cable if you are not connected to the cable. Number 143 MR. HAYNES described various ways of hooking into the cable, including subscribers that have a basic package and then hook into the other channels, and others hooking directly into the cable. Number 163 VICE CHAIR JAMES wondered if the law should go after the sellers of boxes rather than the user. Number 170 MR. HAYNES explained that they are trying to do that through the FBI, but the FBI has told them if they can't prove anything $25,000 or higher they have to go to local enforcement. He said current statute doesn't make it illegal for people to have the boxes, just to use them. Mr. Haynes said HB 315 adds possession language so they can discourage consumer theft and shut down the source of customers for commercial users that are trying to sell the boxes, which is the intent. Number 197 REP. PHILLIPS told Mr. Haynes that she serves on a federal telecommunications commission committee dealing with federal legislation, and this is one of the biggest communications problems in the United States. She indicated that there is legislation pending or has just been passed in Congress that affects this kind of control, and asked if Mr. Haynes could bring the committee up-to-date on that. Rep. Phillips said she thought the federal legislation would put people at very high risk for jail sentences. Number 214 MR. HAYNES said the Cable Regulation Act increased the fines, but the fed's are depending on local statutes to cover this type of theft. Mr. Haynes then showed the committee a number of modified boxes being used in Anchorage and how they are used for cable theft. Number 335 REP. PHILLIPS asked Mr. Haynes if he thought HB 315 would solve the problem. Number 340 MR. HAYNES replied that it would, and to solve the problem of getting rid of the boxes, he is working with the police department to have an amnesty program to turn them in. Number 357 VICE CHAIR JAMES asked, if the legislation passes, how would the cable company find the people who have illegal boxes? She also asked if the cable company could just knock on a person's door and ask to have a look at their box. Number 214 MR. HAYNES said a number of people are turned in by legitimate customers; and yes, their service agreement states they have reasonable access if they suspect there is a problem with their equipment, and they can at a reasonable hour knock on the door and ask to take a look. Number 407 MIKE ROBERGE, President, Alaska Cable Television Association, testified via teleconference from Kirkland, Washington. He focused his comments on small system applications, such as small, rural or bush communities, and explained a number of ways for individuals to obtain cable services illegally. Number 573 REP. GREEN asked who does the enforcement in other states that have enacted this legislation. Number 597 DANIELLA LOPER, House Judiciary Committee Counsel, answered that it would be enforced by the police because it is a criminal offense. Number 591 REP. GREEN asked about the zero fiscal note. Number 602 MS. LOPER answered that there is already enforcement in this area, but that is being directed more to the area of sellers of boxes and this statute just makes it more explicit. Number 613 MARGO KNUTH, Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, Department of Law, testified that one of the greatest things HB 315 does is define theft of cable services as theft in the second degree without regard to the value of the services, because previously they had to prove a value of $500 or more to prosecute. Ms. Knuth said she had two technical questions on page 3 of the bill where part of subsection 1 is repetitious of subsection 2, and the drafter, Mr. Chenoweth, has proposed a rewrite that takes out the replication. Her other question was, what is an inductive connection? Number 663 MARY HUGHES, an Anchorage attorney, referred the second question to Gary Haynes. Regarding the first question, Ms. Hughes asked if Ms. Knuth would agree that this problem would be resolved if we took out (undecipherable) on line 19 and continuing on line 20, thereby not duplicating those words. Number 704 MS. KNUTH said she understands now what Ms. Hughes' point is, and she would appreciate an opportunity to review Ms. Hughes' language and Mr. Chenoweth's language. She said she understands the legislation wants to reach both the person who has the box and separately wants to reach whoever is a party to setting it up in the first place. Number 712 REP. PHILLIPS asked that "inductively" be defined. Number 717 MS. KNUTH said that depending on what the answer to the question actually is, it may not be a matter that requires statutory definition if it's a common scientific principle. MS. KNUTH said she would also like to address the concern regarding fiscal impact, and the Department of Law anticipates handling a few of these prosecutions, and they expect that once the word is out, that will act as a deterrence to other people. Number 734 VICE CHAIR JAMES said she still has a problem with the person that sells it. Is he or she in any kind of violation by this law? And if so, how would that enforcement be handled? Number 738 MS. KNUTH replied that 4(b) criminalizes the conduct. Number 752 REP. GREEN asked if the hammer would drop harder on the user than the seller. Number 757 MS. KNUTH replied no, the courts are forever making distinctions between, for example, furnishing alcohol to a minor versus minor consuming. Number 762 REP. PHILLIPS discussed Section 11.46.200, the whole statute on theft of services, where the last Section (c) in the existing law states that a person may not be prosecuted under this section for theft of cable, microwave, subscription, etc. Rep. Phillips said she thought it was in that section that changes would have to be made to the existing statute. In addition, she asked if the committee needed to add at the end of this on Section 200, or what we are going to do here, and if that was going to be covered. Number 782 MS. KNUTH responded that she believes that 200 (c) will continue to be on the books, and as long as it's a part of the same statute, it should be o.k. She indicated she would look at that section also. Number 786 MS. LOPER asked Ms. Knuth if the felonies are different, because any violation of this statute is a class C felony. Number 794 MS. KNUTH said what she was discussing was the probable sentence that would be imposed by the judge, and a judge in sentencing somebody on a class C felony will look at whether the person was a consumer or user, or seller, or distributor; and will judge more harshly within the judge's sentencing discretion the distributor rather than the consumer. Number 800 Discussion ensued on how to interpret HB 315 relating to second and third degree felonies. Rep. Phillips asked for a clear definition in the new draft. TAPE 94-8, SIDE A Number 000 VICE CHAIR JAMES said it was her intention to carry the bill over. ADJOURNMENT VICE CHAIR JAMES adjourned the meeting at 3:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|