EFF Joins ECA, DCIA in Opposition of Bill S. 978

July 19, 2011 -

The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has joined the Entertainment Consumer Association (ECA) and the DCIA in opposing the bill S. 978, also known as the anti-streaming bill being fast tracked through the U.S. Congress. The advocacy group issued an alert urging the public to oppose the bill, which it called a "reckless attempt to attack online streaming by focusing on the 'unlawful public performance' area of copyright law." Much like the ECA's letter campaign, the EFF is offering a way for the community to send a strong letter to their elected officials. More from the alert:

"S. 978 is a reckless attempt to attack online streaming by focusing on the "unlawful public performance" area of copyright law. By increasing the criminal penalties for certain online public performances, the bill will impose a chilling effect around the posting and creation of online video. Moreover, it will hamper the pace of innovation as users, websites, and investors cope with the uncertainty of running afoul of one of the more vague sections of copyright law. Act now and tell your Senators to oppose this shortsighted bill!

Under certain conditions, an "unlawful public performance" of a copyrighted work is already a crime. But this bill targets online streaming in an effort to give the government more enforcement power to bear—particularly against websites that the entertainment industry believes to be threatening.

There have been few court decisions regarding public performance online. That means that if this bill passes, it’s hard to predict whom the government will target. Government agents may choose to go after individual users, or entire websites and video platforms. Given the history of the government's approach to copyright enforcement, the government may well wind up taking cues from trigger-happy copyright holders. The attempt to expand criminal penalties for online streaming also reeks of a means to stock the arsenal of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in performing more wild seizures of domain names.

Bills like S. 978 are the "inch" from which the government and rightsholder industry will take a "mile" out of freedom and innovation on the Internet. S. 978 was recently approved by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to be considered by the entire Senate, so your action is urgently needed. Contact your Senators now to let them know to OPPOSE this bill!
"

You can participate here.

Source: EFF


 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Should ‘sexism’ factor into a video game’s rating?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenKate Edwards' Twitter: "like people, tools are imperfect; we've removed it for now."11/22/2014 - 6:35pm
Andrew EisenHard to say with any certainty but it appears it at least understands the tool didn't do what it thought it did.11/22/2014 - 6:34pm
WonderkarpI've yet to find the IGDA responding too the situation other than deleting a link.11/22/2014 - 6:34pm
Matthew WilsonI hope the IGDA understands why its a mistake, that's all I want.11/22/2014 - 6:33pm
Andrew EisenHeh, lawyering up would be grossly overracting! And really silly. Well, if what the IGDA did say was not enough for you, try contacting them and letting them know how you feel.11/22/2014 - 6:31pm
Wonderkarpall I want is an apology from the IGDA. nothing fancy, not even addressed to me. Just something that says, "We messed up. We're Sorry" thats it. Not exactly those words except Sorry. If I was overreacting, I'd be lawyering up.11/22/2014 - 6:29pm
Andrew EisenI get it, I just think you're taking it the wrong way and overreacting.11/22/2014 - 6:27pm
Wonderkarpatleast Matthew understands why I am miffed at that list11/22/2014 - 6:26pm
Andrew EisenMatthew - That I agree with. Linking to that list was silly. Hopefully IGDA will more carefully vet the resources it links to make sure they do what they're supposed to.11/22/2014 - 6:25pm
Andrew EisenNope. No insults.11/22/2014 - 6:21pm
WonderkarpAnd here come the insults. Wanna throw some more?11/22/2014 - 6:18pm
Andrew EisenYou're an English major? Wow.11/22/2014 - 6:16pm
Matthew Wilsonno I am glad they did, but I want this talked about so it does not happen again.11/22/2014 - 6:15pm
Wonderkarpdude, I'm an english major. It means everybody on that list is a harasser but they couldnt get all the harassers in the list.11/22/2014 - 6:14pm
Andrew EisenPerhaps so, and again, the IGDA took it down. Does that mean nothing to you guys? Are mistakes eternal? Can we never atone? Never make amends? Are we forever damned?11/22/2014 - 6:14pm
Andrew Eisen1. No, that's not what that means. 2. Yeah, I'll be interested to see if there is any tangible damage whatsoever. But hey, I'm not on the list (or maybe I am, I don't know) so maybe I just couldn't understand.11/22/2014 - 6:13pm
Matthew Wilsonthe implacation is that everyone on that list harassed people. that being said I would not be surprised if their lawyer told them to take it down to be safe.11/22/2014 - 6:12pm
Wonderkarpthen I want a public apology from IGDA. I want the IGDA to get on twitter and say "we were wrong, and everybody on that list isnt a harasser".11/22/2014 - 6:11pm
Andrew EisenAs for the person who made the list, I don't see where it says this is a list of people who harass others. Although, feel free to point me in the right direction if it does.11/22/2014 - 6:10pm
Andrew EisenThat says "some" and again, the list was removed once it found out it was a lousy tool.11/22/2014 - 6:09pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician