Corante

About this Author
Ernest Miller Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School. Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
Copyfight
LawMeme

Listen to the weekly audio edition on IT Conversations:
The Importance Of ... Law and IT.

Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T gmail.com

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More

In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

The Importance of...

« The INDUCE Act (IICA) Harms National Security | Main | Hatch's Hit List #23 - Email to RSS »

August 09, 2004

The Future of Music Coalition Against the INDUCE Act (IICA)

Posted by Ernest Miller

Creative Commons reports that the Future of Music Coalition has come out against the Inducing Infringement of Copyrights Act (IICA, née INDUCE Act) by means of a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee (Musicians on the INDUCE act).

Read the FMC's letter on the INDUCE Act here: FMC Sends Letter to Senate Judiciary Committee on the INDUCE Act.

We would ask the committee to consider the concerns outlined in this letter before voting on legislation that not only impacts copyright owners, but also creators, technology companies and music fans. We urge the committee to push for solutions that preserve the unique architecture and networking capability of the internet yet allow creators, performers, and copyright owners to be compensated for their work. Finally, we remind the committee that musicians and artists are the engine of creation at the source of this debate and thus deserve to be represented as stakeholders at the policy table.

Read the FMC's analysis of the INDUCE Act here: The Need to Strike a Balance: INDUCE Act Attempts to Protect the Content and Attack the Technology.

If the INDUCE Act does not pass as is, it may hurt the creative industries. However, if the proposed legislation does pass in its current form, it has the potential to hurt not only the technology industries but also the entire U.S. economy, the effects of which could extend to all Americans. Yet the current debate should not be a question of choosing one industry over another. Ideally there should be a way to protect the content without severely compromising the technology, and any legislation passed that does not balance the competing interests will likely have very negative long-term effects. Holleyman’s five key points appear to be a good starting point to address this complicated issue.

Finally, in attempting to protect copyrighted materials, such groups should be mindful of the potential for illegal file sharing networks based outside of the United States. How will any U.S. legislation prevent consumers from accessing overseas sites to download pirated files? Copyright infringement is a global problem and U.S. legislation alone will likely not be the absolute solution. A comprehensive package containing effective legal relief, consumer education, licensing of content to peer-to-peer services, and an affordable, convenient distribution system that makes it easy to legally download files, as well as additional measures, may be necessary.

Comments (2) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: INDUCE Act


COMMENTS

1. Alexander Wehr on August 9, 2004 12:13 PM writes...

"effective legal relief, consumer education, licensing of content to peer-to-peer services, and an affordable, convenient distribution system that makes it easy to legally download files, as well as additional measures, may be necessary."

If the consumers need to be "educated" (err.. BRAINWASHED), it is obvious they dont want what's going on.

It is time to start paying attention to what consumers want rather than turning our nation and its schools into "re-education" camps reminiscent of nazi germany.

The customer is always right... they have no right to be brainwashing or manipulating the public with fallacies and bold faced lies because they dont want to change their business models.

Collective license.. not pay per use.. and not DRM. Get it through your skulls.

Permalink to Comment

2. Alexander Wehr on August 9, 2004 12:23 PM writes...

"Copyright infringement is a global problem and U.S. legislation alone will likely not be the absolute solution."

it has not been established by even one court case that any single individual is actually guilty of copyright infringement for sharing his personal music collection with the few people who connect to him via peer to peer each month.

I would not disagree with the assumption of p2p as copyright infringement if such a case existed, but it does not.

The only case similar to it involves napster, but napster assisted in a tremendous collective volume of music, not 50-500 titles that may be accessed by 10-30 users a month.

I do wish people would stick to established concepts rather than "educated guesses" when speaking on legislative issues.

Permalink to Comment


EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




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