Group Uses Justin Bieber to Counter Anti-Piracy Bill

October 20, 2011 -

Using Justin Bieber (of all people) as a focal point for their message an advocacy group has created a campaign to warn U.S. citizens of the dangers found in an anti-piracy bill pending in the Senate. The bill, which was approved in the Senate Judiciary Committee approved the bill in June, would make it a felony for users to post unlicensed content online 10 times in 180 days. The bill is backed by the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

So why use Justin Bieber for the campaign? Because, as the group points out Justin Bieber began his career by posting YouTube videos of himself singing other people's songs. Under the proposed law, he'd do five years in prison. Of course realistically Justin Bieber wouldn't spend five years in prison because he's a minor, but you get the point.

"Those videos are still on the Internet, so if Bieber doesn't pull them all down right away, he could be prosecuted and sent to the slammer for five years on felony charges," Fight for the Future claimed in a press release.

The bill, sponsored by Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), would make it a felony for users to post unlicensed content online 10 times in 180 days. The bill is strongly supported by the usual suspects: the Recording Industry Association of America, the Motion Picture Association of America and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Linden Zakula, a spokesman for Sen. Klobuchar, tells The Hill that this bill would not send Justin Bieber to jail.

“The bill language specifically targets people who willfully engage in copyright infringement for commercial advantage or private financial gain," he said. "The bill does not criminalize uploading videos to YouTube or streaming videos at home.”

Fight for the Future disagrees.

"What's genuinely troubling is that this bill applies to a massive slice of social media activity," said Fight for the Future co-founder Holmes Wilson.

The group claims that the legislation would apply to karaoke videos, footage of people dancing to music and videos with music playing in the background.

Fight for the Future is using FreeBieber.org to make its point. The site features digitally-altered photos of police hauling Bieber away in handcuffs and the pop star in an orange jumpsuit sitting in a prison cell. The site's headline reads: "Justice faces 5 brutal years in prison."

As much as some people would like to see the teen pop sensation do some hard time behind bars, the point the group is trying to make is that - if this law were in place a few years ago - Justin Bieber would go to prison (or at the very least a seedy reform school).

Source: The Hill


Comments

Re: Group Uses Justin Bieber to Counter Anti-Piracy Bill

Oh man, hard choice.

 

Between Justin Bieber and the American criminal justice system being used to strip people of their voting rights and label them the same as a violent offender or sex offender for something as difficult to explain to someone as copyright law...

 

Such a tough choice!

Re: Group Uses Justin Bieber to Counter Anti-Piracy Bill

Pirate more to send Bieber to jail? HELL YA!!!


Copyright infringement is nothing more than civil disobedience to a bad set of laws. Let's renegotiate them.

---

http://zippydsm.deviantart.com/

Re: Group Uses Justin Bieber to Counter Anti-Piracy Bill

For once, I agree. This Bieber fiend must be stopped.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will we ever get Half-Life 3?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightAs an illustration, you can kill someone by shooting them in the head, or you can starve them to death. The means don't matter, just the ends.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary Knightquiknkold, I can't speak for James, but trying to silence a critic by blocking its financial supporters is a censorious activity. It may not be the same as direct censoring, but its ends are the same.10/02/2014 - 8:18am
E. Zachary KnightMecha, I found neither the title nor the content of Gamasutra's Gamers are Dead article inflammatory. But I guess that just means I was the target audience for it.10/02/2014 - 8:16am
prh99@james_fudge Agreed, but then again this group doesn't exactly have high ethical standards or even a grasp of hypocrisy.10/02/2014 - 8:14am
MechaTama31Are... Are you guys suggesting that the content of the "Gamers are over" article is *less* inflammatory than the title?10/02/2014 - 7:58am
quiknkoldhey James, Boycotts are not Censorship. Supreme Court NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co. (1982)10/02/2014 - 7:37am
Michael ChandraWhat's in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. That said, the name says it all.10/02/2014 - 7:34am
E. Zachary KnightYes.10/02/2014 - 7:29am
ConsterQuestion: is Kefka on drugs, or is he secretly a conspiracy theorist character from a TV show?10/02/2014 - 7:21am
james_fudgeEnjoy my comedy stylings.10/02/2014 - 7:10am
james_fudgehttp://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/02/It-s-been-real-GameJournoPros-prepares-to-close-its-doors10/02/2014 - 7:09am
InfophileAnd the headlines-only part is particularly depressing, as in most sites, they're not even written by the author of the article. So the author has to field tons of complaints about what the editor decided to title their article.10/02/2014 - 6:25am
InfophileAE: Most people don't. This has been tested - I remember an article slipped in a request in the second-to-last paragraph to use the word "banana" in your comment if you read that. It took over 50 posts for a banana.10/02/2014 - 6:24am
james_fudgeprh99: Whether you agree with the article or not, fighting alleged censorship with censorship is hella lame10/02/2014 - 4:27am
james_fudgewhoever made that decision at Intel will regret it later on down the road. Boycotts are tricky business.10/02/2014 - 4:26am
prh99The unflattering characterization "They don’t know how to dress or behave." & "‘Games culture’ is a petri dish of people who know so little about how human social interaction..." probably didn't help.10/02/2014 - 1:52am
prh99Probably not many as it was purely a vindictive move. The headline alone was plenty of ammo, but for those that did read and complain..10/02/2014 - 1:42am
Andrew EisenI wonder how many of those who complain about that article actually read past the headline.10/02/2014 - 1:37am
prh99http://intel.ly/1tjh1AH http://bit.ly/1rGPHOY http://intel.ly/Zu6go9 it isn't surprising "Gamers are over" didn't go over very well.10/02/2014 - 1:34am
Papa MidnightCan you parlay that to #WriteAGawkerArticle? The cesspool of horrid crap over there extends far beyond Kotaku.10/02/2014 - 12:34am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician