« What Real's Hacking of FairPlay Doesn't Do |
Main
| Les Vadasz on the INDUCE Act (IICA): A Bill That Chills »
July 26, 2004
Entertainment Atty Rips INDUCE Act (IICA): Not Good For Artists
Posted by Ernest Miller
"Fred Wilhelms is an entertainment attorney in Nashville, representing recording artists and songwriters on royalty and benefit issues. His clients include Howard Tate, Bettye LaVette, Sam Moore, Mark Farner, and Paul Revere. He has testified before the California Senate Committee on the Entertainment Industry's royalty accounting practices." He has also just written a lengthy, blistering attack ("this piece of legislation scares the hell out of me") on the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) in Streamingmedia.com (Commentary: No Matter What You Call It, the Inducing Infringement of Copyright Act Spells Trouble). This is one artist's lawyer who recognizes that putting so much power into the hands of the labels and movie studios is not a good idea for artists:
The fundamental problem I have with P2P is that the creators dont get paid for the distribution of their work, and I dont really buy the arguments that this "free" dissemination encourages people to buy CDs, or that it builds a fan base, or that it promotes their live appearances. The hard numbers really dont bear these contentions out. INDUCE, however, attacks the wrong part of the problem by attempting to stop technology in its tracks. As the VCR proved, the MPAAs position in the Betamax case was shortsighted at best, and the current bill proves they and their allies havent learned anything in the intervening 20 years.
Rather than figure out how to get paid from the technology, Big Content is supporting INDUCE in order to stop the technology from coming to market. This is just stupid. INDUCE isnt going to stop hardware and software developers outside the U.S. from working on new technology and bringing it to market. It is going to stop U.S. developers from participating in this growth, just as it will stop U.S. manufacturers, distributors, and retailers from achieving any share of the profits to be made, or employing the people who perform these functions, and no one else is going to be paid, either.
INDUCE gives Big Content a hammer to smash new technology. INDUCE gives Big Content a hammer to smash First Amendment rights to even talk favorably about new technology. If you are as unsettled by this idea as I am, I suggest you at least write someone about it.
Indeed. Try
EFF's action alert (
The Induce Act: Innovation Under Attack) or
Save the iPod (
Fax Your Senators).
Want to know more about the INDUCE Act?
Please see LawMeme's well-organized index to everything I've written on the topic: The LawMeme Reader's Guide to Ernie Miller's Guide to the INDUCE Act.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: INDUCE Act
- RELATED ENTRIES
- Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 23
- Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 22
- Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 21
- Kitchen Academy - The Hollywood Cookbook and Guest Chef Michael Montilla - March 18th
- Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 20
- Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 19
- Kitchen Academy - Course II - Day 18
- Salsa Verde