Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live." View all posts by Jimmy Akin
Umm…. why, Jimmy?
Copyright protection makes sense to me…
Can’t give a full write-up now, but here’s one reason: It would ban ad-blocking technologies and *force* us to endure more advertising. That alone is reason enough to oppose it (though there are other reasons as well).
Jimmy,
I read the actual text of the bill and ISTM the language about skipping ads is rather vague, it’s enclosed in a clause *allowing* the skipping of objectionable content (e.g. sex scenes). I agree that it could be interpreted to make skipping commercials illegal, so I am concerned.
Text of relevant section
As a federal employee I can’t call my Congresscritters during working hours. However, I just now, before I head off to work, called and left messages on both of my senators’ voicemail. I encourage others with concerns about this bill to do the same.
Oops, the link expired. The relevant part is section 212.
The implication of the bill I’m most concerned about, if the [i]Wired[/i] article is accurate, is the bill’s alleged derailing of “fair use.” Fair use is an extremely important principle and needs to be protected.