The case against Bell’s draconian copyright proposals:
- Bell’s reckless proposal is a disproportionate and unnecessary attack on users’ rights that will result in widespread chilling of expression online.
- This is a blatant attempt by Bell to prop up its outdated media business at the expense of free expression and our democratic rights.
- Bell’s proposal goes far beyond what even U.S. copyright lobbyists are advocating for, which is typically the most extreme.3
- Putting a third-party agency in charge of what people can and cannot see online inherently gives preferential treatment to some online content over others.
- A mandatory website blocking system with no court oversight is especially alarming when you are considering criminal liability.
- This is the kind of activities that we see in authoritarian regimes, which seriously compromises and erodes our free expression and democratic rights.
Please support Open Media at the link below
