Who I'd call to testify

As a Senator, I would have the opportunity to ask questions and present witnesses and evidence in committee hearings regarding practically any subject. One subject growing in importance to me is intellectual property, and its relationship to the entertainment industry.

What troubles me is the appearance that this industry is seeking longer duration of copyright protection, and stiffer penalties for violations, to compensate for obsolete, opaque business models, ostensibly to protect artists but in my opinion only to facilitate screwing them.

Who would I call to testify on this topic? Prince. Janis Ian. Who else? Maybe that Rodriguez guy who did Sin City? There have to be a few disaffected screenwriters who'd like to talk about the boards that cartelized the production of motion pictures. Or fan-fic creators who've been threatened with lawsuits, for the crime of liking a work so much they emulate it. Or the businesses that dub rough language out of Hollywood motion pictures.

I don't see much difference between profanity-scrubbing, on the one hand, and aging Boomers in the movie industry investing millions into remakes of the favorite Saturday-morning TV shows and sitcoms of their childhoods. Agreed, the aging Boomers have the licenses, copyrights, trademarks, contracts, and so on. But what they don't have is creativity or lives. In both cases, the original vision of the artist is disregarded and a different vision is being imposed. Whose new vision departs further from the original artist's?

Too bad I can't ask Isaac Asimov to come back from the dead to testify about how his Robot novels were butchered; nor can I summon Robert Heinlein regarding the 'treatment' Starship Troopers received.

But I can ask someone from the motion picture industry to comment on how the appearance of smoking in motion pictures is out of the industry's control because "that's what the script called for, and we respect the integrity of the script and the intent of the writer."

Maybe George Jones would like to testify about how he was plied with liquor and cocaine by a manager or two---not to excuse his drinking and drugging, but to show that the entertainment industry has a nasty habit of capturing and constraining talent, often through very ugly means. Hey, Matt Welch's review of three athletes' biographies fits into this theme too.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not contemplating sticking Uncle Sugar's camel's nose further into the tent. Far from it. But the industry's claim to intellectual property, and Federal laws to protect or enhance it, must be predicated on the viability of the business model and the value of the property. What are they really losing, and do they really need (more) law to protect it?