DCIA Joins ECA in Opposition of the Anti-Streaming Bill

July 18, 2011 -

The Distributed Computing Industry Association (DCIA) announced that it supports the Entertainment Consumer Association (ECA) in its opposition of US Senate Bill S. 978. The bill seeks to amend the criminal penalty provision for "criminal infringement of a copyright," and for other purposes. As the DCIA points out in its support statement, the bill is currently being fast-tracked through Congress without "adequate opportunities for critical review."

Here is an important part of the group's support of the ECA's efforts:

"If enacted, S.978 would amend current copyright law to include not only the unauthorized replication and redistribution of copyrighted works, but also 'public performances by electronic means.'

Specifically, US citizens would be subject to severe penalties, including felony-length prison sentences, for making or offering ten or more public performances by electronic means during any 180-day period of one or more copyrighted works; if the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, could exceed $2,500; or if the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000.

While the bill is intended to ensure that the unauthorized streaming of copyrighted material is deemed unlawful, similar to the ways in which unlicensed downloading and uploading already is - which we strongly support in principle - its wording is so inarticulate as to potentially expose people to serious punishment for widely accepted, harmless, and frequently performed behaviors.
"

The group goes on to say that the bill's sponsors, Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and John Cornyn (R-TX) are misguided in introducing this legislation because it contains a "very dangerous measure" that would in many ways be "tantamount to repealing the First Amendment."

The group also points out that this bill comes at a time when game developers and publishers where sharing content such as photos and videos with the community is a feature. Because the law is so vague and doesn't address what fair use is, someone with a popular video containing gameplay or other copyrighted footage on YouTube could potentially get in trouble.

Finally the DCIA encourages the public, its supporters and it members to join in on the ECA's letter writing campaign.

Truly the only way to fight such a bill is to let your let your elected officials know that you strongly dislike what they are doing.

You can learn more about the DCIA's efforts here. The ECA's letter writing campaign is here.

[Full disclosure: GamePolitics is an ECA publication.]


Comments

Re: DCIA Joins ECA in Opposition of the Anti-Streaming Bill

Coming right off of Brown v. EMA, it feels like we just got done fighting the Nazis only to have to deal with the Soviets.

Re: DCIA Joins ECA in Opposition of the Anti-Streaming Bill

Already got my reply from the office of John Cornyn... he still doesn't "get it" and I fear he never will. He knows who keeps him in office and he knows it's not us citizens.

Re: DCIA Joins ECA in Opposition of the Anti-Streaming Bill

Plus, being a politician, he's set, so he's not effected by what effects the citizens, so until it effects him personally, he won't do anything.

Re: DCIA Joins ECA in Opposition of the Anti-Steaming Bill

We must stop STEAMING now! Think of the poor shirts and pants in dry cleaners around the coutnry! Yeah, you may want to fix your headline.

Noticed a couple other errors, you really need an editor or something.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Mattsworknamejob they wanted without the unions getting involved. The problem is, it has some unexpected side effects, like the ones Info mentioned07/07/2015 - 8:49am
MattsworknameThe problem being, right to work states exsist specificly as a counter to Unions, as the last 20 or so years have shown, the unions have been doing this countries economoy NO favors. The right to work states came into being to allow people to work any07/07/2015 - 8:49am
Infophile(cont'd) discriminatory. This can only be done for protected classes which are outlined in law (race, sex, religion, ethnicity everywhere, sexual orientation in some states). So, a gay person could be fired because they're gay and have no recourse there.07/07/2015 - 7:27am
Infophile@Goth: See here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/firedforbeinggay.asp for a good discussion on it. Basically, the problem is that in the US, most states allow at will firing, and it's the burden of the fired person to prove the firing was ...07/07/2015 - 7:25am
Goth_SkunkAssuming that's true, then that is a fight worth fighting for.07/07/2015 - 6:58am
Yuuri@ Goth_Skunk, in many states being gay is not a protected status akin to say race or religion. It's also in the "Right to work" states. Those are the states where one can be fired for any reason (provided it isn't a "protected" one.)07/07/2015 - 6:07am
Goth_Skunkregarded as a beacon of liberty and freedom that is the envy of the world, would not have across-the-board Human Rights laws that don't at the very least equal those of my own country.07/07/2015 - 5:47am
Goth_SkunkI find that hard to believe, Infophile. I have difficulty believing employers can *still* fire people for being gay. I would need to see some evidence that this is fact, because as a Canadian, I can't believe that the United States,07/07/2015 - 5:46am
InfophileFor that matter, even women don't yet have full legal equality with men. The US government still places limits on the positions women can serve in the military. And that's just the legal side of things - the "culture wars" are more than just laws.07/07/2015 - 5:43am
InfophileAnd that's just LGB issues. Get ready for an incoming battle on rights for trans* people. And then after that, a battle for poly people.07/07/2015 - 5:41am
InfophileA battle's been won. In many states employers can still fire people for being gay. And in many states, parents can force their children into reparative therapy to try to "fix" being gay. Those battles still need to be fought.07/07/2015 - 5:40am
Goth_Skunkand now they've switched to battles that don't need to be fought.07/07/2015 - 5:37am
Goth_SkunkIn my opinion, it was the final legal hurdle denying homosexual couples final and recognized statuses as eligible spouses. But even though this war's been won, some people are still too keen to keep fighting battles,07/07/2015 - 5:28am
Goth_SkunkAnd it's a trend I don't mind seeing continue. Same-sex marriage was at long-last made definitively legal by SCOTUS, and it's about time. I'm glad it's finally happened, as it was desperately needed.07/07/2015 - 5:25am
Infophile(cont'd) It started long before that. Perhaps the American Civil War comes to mind?)07/07/2015 - 3:59am
InfophileOn Goth's linked article: Historically speaking, there may have been cycles, but remember that the left has steadily gained ground. Is there a good reason to expect that to be different this time? (Oh, and no, Culture War 1.0 wasn't with the Baby Boomers.07/07/2015 - 3:59am
Goth_Skunk"THIS VIDEO IS PROBLEMATIC:" About Social Justice Warriors, by J.T. Sexkik. Excellent video. http://ow.ly/PgGnD07/07/2015 - 3:22am
Goth_Skunkand repeats the cycle, over and over. Presently, the far left culture is overreaching, and is about to lose their stranglehold on power.07/06/2015 - 10:01pm
Goth_SkunkAs far back as the 60's, according to the writers. The culture war moves in cycles from one generation to the next. The left rebels against the right, takes over, overreaches to the point where the right rebels right back, takes over, overreaches ->07/06/2015 - 9:58pm
MattsworknameGoth, what "Comming overreach" , the media and goverment have been overreaching for years07/06/2015 - 9:34pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician