Searching for more information?

Loading

Congressional Leaders Intro Massive E-PARASITE Act

Contributed by: Participatory-Politics-Foundation on October 30, 2011.

Originally published on the OpenCongress blog by Donny Shaw

Powerful House Republicans and Democrats have taken two of the most unpopular bills in the Senate, combined them into one big bill, and amended them to make them even worse. Oh, and they gave the whole thing a new name — the E-PARASITE Act.

The bill combines S.978, opposed by 99% of OpenCongress users (19 in favor/1691 opposed), and S.968, opposed by 96% of users (13 in favor/287 opposed).

S.978 is the bill that would make it a felony to stream unauthorized copyrighted content over the web, with a penalty of up to five years in prison. As many internet rights groups have noted, the bill is so broadly written that it could put people in jail for things like performing cover songs on YouTube or having the wrong song in the background of your video. In the Senate version, illegal streaming of copyrighted content would have to consist of “10 or more public performances.” The new House versions revises that down to “1 or more public performances.” If this becomes law and you accidentally post copyrighted material to YouTube, you better figure it out quick and take it down before you get a single view.

S.968 is the “internet blacklist” bill that would give the Justice Department new power to block access to websites that they determine to be “dedicated to infringing activities.” Under the new House bill, the language describing which sites the government could shut down is expanded to any sites they think have “only limited purpose or use other than infringing.” Do you trust the government to determine that all the legal sharing on services like Dropbox and Rapidshare is of more than “limited” purpose?

The two Senate bills have already passed the Senate Judiciary Committee and are set for passage on the Senate floor. The new House bill is sponsored by the House Judiciary Committee Chairman, Rep. Lamar Smith [R, TX-21], and co-sponsored by the top Democrat on the committee, Rep. John Conyers [D, MI-14], and a hearing is already scheduled for November 16. Expect this to be given priority rush treatment.

We’ll have more on this bill soon. For now, check out this great video about the bill from Fight for the Future and Kirby Ferguson (btw, the video is about S.968, which intellectual property rights advocates say is less oddensive than the new House bill):

 

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

Full disclosure: I am a board member for Fight for the Future.

  • Al

    Protecting IP my foot. It really screws blossoming artists-many of whom aren’t copyrighted-out of getting their names & art out to the world. With such broad language in the bill the DoJ can turn around & decide to prosecute these people. I have not yet set up my website due to this pending legislation because I want to share my artwork with others by allowing them to use my images. I know I am the creator since I retain the originals, but I believe art is meant to be shared. I don’t want others to be prosecuted. My second reason is: my writings (poetry, essays, blogs, etc) would be considered “dissenting” by the language in the bill. Unfortunately, I would have to copyright my writings, however, I’m willing to allow others to use quotes or parts of them as long as they have written permission (emails count). Once again, I don’t want the broadness of the language to lead to the prosecution of someone else using my writings in a repost on their website or blog.
    My domestic partner is a musician with his own YouTube channel who could be seriously affected by this bill if signed into law. Many of the samples in his songs are from his friends’ and fellow musicians’ songs which were orally agreed upon. In fact, they were with each other trading samples back and forth. Since my partner is self produced (and I mean self produced-no record deals, no studio, this is at home with pro equipment, computers, and programming he paid for himself by himself with his own money out of his own paychecks over time) it would be very easy to prosecute him since he’s the only self produced musician out of his friends (who have been on and off of tiny indie labels which are now defunct). At times I’ve been a distributor, literally giving away his CDs for free to people I know just to help get his music out there. I never sold anything because I’m not licensed. My point to the story is: a bill so vauge in language can possibly hurt new artists such as my partner who would have a hard time getting agreements in writing from the friends/artists he sampled with since their record labels are now defunct.
    It also violates the 1st Amendment as far as dissenting speech and art are concerned. I have signed many petitions against this. Personally, I don’t use copyrighted content without permission since it’s already illegal to do so. I simply believe that this is another way that our government is trying to infringe upon our civil liberties. Those who are caught violating current copyright infringement laws already get prosecuted via lawsuits/fines/prison time. But the 1st Amendment guarantees my right and the rights of others to dissenting speech online or offline.
    As I said before, if it’s copyrighted content, ask permission first! But dissent-free speech with or without a copyright-can’t and won’t be shut down. Thank you.

Advertise with IZEA Media