Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights

from the nice-'retirement' dept

As was expected, former Senator Chris Dodd has now confirmed that he is a blatant liar and willing to sell out his principles for about a million bucks a year. Just months ago, he announced that he would not, under any condition, take a lobbying job. And here it is, just a month or so after he left the Senate and he’s confirmed that he’s taken the top job at the MPAA, an organization, who just a week ago admitted its number one priority was lobbying the government. Of course, Dodd is also using a loophole to get around the laws that forbid Senators from jumping to lobbying jobs so quickly after leaving the Senate. On top of that, in announcing this, he also talked up the importance of increasing our already draconian copyright laws, with views that appear to contrast to what he said back when he was a Senator and claimed he supported internet freedom. I guess that million dollar plus per year salary eases the conscience.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: mpaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Confirmed: Chris Dodd Lies, Takes Top Lobbying Job, Promises To Trample Consumer Rights”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
80 Comments
Joe Publius says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Less hyperbole, more opinion.

I don’t think of it as hyperbole, it’s more like an opinion.

Let me put it like this:
Unless Dodd represents a change from the “Copyright lasts forever, minus a day; let’s have ICE shutter without due process 1,000 websites to stop one infringing site” IP maximalist position, then I would consider him representing a message that not only tramples consumer rights, but the public domain, and culture in general.

MrWilson says:

Re: Re: Re:2 !

“Sen. Chris Dodd says he still doesn’t know what he’ll do come January 2011, when, for the first time in 36 years, he will no longer be a member of Congress. But he has ruled out one option.

‘No lobbying, no lobbying,’ Dodd said in a recent interview. That Dodd would forgo a trip through Washington’s ‘revolving door,’ using his policy and political expertise–and a thick Rolodex–to launch a new career in the influence industry, may come as a surprise.”

http://www.ctmirror.org/story/7485/lawmakerlobbyists

“Christopher Dodd, the former five-term Democratic senator from Connecticut, was named Tuesday to head the Motion Picture Association of America.

Dodd, who just retired after declining to run for a sixth Senate term, replaces Bob Pisano, the lobbying group?s interim chief since April.”

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/dodd-mpaa/

So what part of calling Dodd a liar is hyperbolic?

Thomas (profile) says:

Not surprised..

Just goes to show how corrupt Congressmen are. I’m not sure whether the job is a reward for influence or payback for votes done in congress. Either way Congress has to be one of the most corrupt groups in the country.

Naturally rules are made to prevent the problem, but the Congressmen always make sure there a loopholes so they can still do what they want to earn millions.

are there any honest people either in Congress or ex-Congress?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Not surprised..

Someone can get fifteen years in jail for scamming a business. From what I hear, if someone scams a big casino, the consequences could be ten years in jail.

Yet, this X senator can lie to the public and break the law (under the pretext that he is utilizing some loophole) and no one would ever prosecute him and he won’t see a single day in jail, despite the fact that his lies have a far wider impact than the impact these people who can face multiple years in jail have.

Pfizer can knowingly sell Aids tainted blood and pharma companies get away with all sorts of illegal activities and the consequences are that the corporation (the shareholders) end up paying penalties but those actually responsible for the crime are not held personally accountable and they never see a single day in jail and they don’t pay for their crimes out of their personal assets because of the corporate veil. Yet we’re then supposed to believe that corporations are people, but, unlike people, corporations can commit all sorts of crimes and not face any jail time and they can protect those actually responsible for the crimes from facing any jail time whatsoever or paying anything out of their personal assets. Amazing.

Anonymous Coward says:

Get a life, Masnick

“..former Senator Chris Dodd has now confirmed that he is a blatant liar and willing to sell out his principles for about a million bucks a year..”

Listen, bub, I don’t know who you are but Dodd needs to pay back the specially-priced Countrywide Home Loan to Angelo Mozilo (with interest) and the MPAA probably gave him the best terms.

Let a man work. Just because you have ethics doesn’t mean Dodd can’t. Geez.

Anonymous Coward says:

You call this reporting?

“..former Senator Chris Dodd has now confirmed that he is a blatant liar and willing to sell out his principles for about a million bucks a year..”

Listen, bub, I don’t know who you are but Dodd needs to pay back the specially-priced Countrywide Home Loan to Angelo Mozilo (with interest) and the MPAA probably gave him the best terms.

Let a man work. Just because you have ethics doesn’t mean Dodd can’t. Geez.

John Doe says:

We are fighting a long, uphill battle...

I am afraid that we have a long fight in front of us to get real, meaningful copyright and other IP reform. Every time I try to discuss the issue with someone, they say “yea, but that is immoral”. They can’t get past any possible moral implications to file sharing. I try to explain that it isn’t about the morality of it all, it is about market forces. It is about creating content that people want and giving it to them the way they want to consume it. If you don’t do both, you wont last long. It is simple Business 101.

fogbugzd (profile) says:

Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...

>>They can’t get past any possible moral implications to file sharing.

To me the objective isn’t to make file sharing legal. The battle is to break the stranglehold the gatekeepers are struggling to maintain. The battle is to have a level of fairness and realistic pricing that will actually encourage most people to follow the rules and obey the laws.

Try turning the question around and asking “Who’s the pirate?” I think it was Courtney Love who asked that question originally. Is it fair that a budding young artist can’t even sing their own songs at open mike nights because they have all been shut down due to extortion and bizarre licensing requirements? If I want my music to be streamed for free I find I can’t because the collection societies collect money on all music that is streamed and make it virtually impossible to run small indie-only streaming services? Is it fair that most bands who win the lottery and get signed to a record deal never see a penny from selling albums? Is it fair to have my own music taken down from youtube because of a bogus DCMA notice? Is it fair to have law firms go into the mass extortion business with flimsy claims of P2P activity?

John Doe says:

Re: Re: We are fighting a long, uphill battle...

“To me the objective isn’t to make file sharing legal. The battle is to break the stranglehold the gatekeepers are struggling to maintain. The battle is to have a level of fairness and realistic pricing that will actually encourage most people to follow the rules and obey the laws.”

This is exactly the argument I am making, but people just shut down on the moral issue. Their ears close, their eyes roll back into their head and their bodies shake uncontrollably. At that point, nothing I say will penetrate their defenses.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 We are fighting a long, uphill battle...

STOP!

This is the problem with the whole copyright debate. Each side thinks it is morally superior to the other and that the other must “lose” somehow.

It does not work that way. It doesn’t have to be an “all or nothing” situation. We must continue to work to educate people and to reach an understanding that is beneficial to artists and, above all else, society.

Piracy exists and will continue to exist. We must find ways to turn that into an advantage because, clearly, what has been done until now has clearly failed and will continue to fail, until we take an objective and sincere look tat the problem.

Your comment and the one above do not help in the least.

Berenerd (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4 We are fighting a long, uphill battle...

Destroy the laws? Nope. Ignore morons like you? Yup. I will no longer support a company that can’t grown with the times. Its a foolish venture and this is why the world’s economy is failing. People can’t change with the times. Weird Al has it right…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGM8PT1eAvY

Stuart says:

Re: Re:

I am so glad that you suck as a human being.

Not so sure I like the fact that in order to make yourself feel better about it that you need to pretend that everyone else in the world sucks as much as you.

Sure. Many people are selfish asses who will destroy the foundation that they stand upon to build a flimsy step ladder to temporarily raise themselves up.

Not me though. I would rather have long term stability and happiness.

Though if you get into the 40 – 50 mil/year range and give me a 10 year plus contract I may sell out.

teka (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

This is one of my favorites!

Anyone who disagrees with me is a child!
They Must be living in mommies house, because grownups like Me! Me! Me~! all know that I am totally smart and right.

Keep the comedy flowing, anonymous coward who also also calls people “slimeballs” when they protest a lying political and claims this entire article is fabrication (but at the time of this post, has not replied to the evidence of how wrong they are)

Greevar (profile) says:

This is the very reason I feel that material and monetary contributions to campaigns and elected officials should be looked upon as the bribery that it is and outlawed. Nobody should be allowed to buy the laws from the government. So, you want to help your candidate get into office? Volunteer your time instead of your money.

Oh, but how will candidates get funding to campaign? How about a grant from the government of a fixed amount? Now the campaign has to be won on merit rather than advertising power. It will never happen though.

Overcast (profile) says:

Almost everyone has ‘their price’ – some are much, much cheaper than others.

My “side” is actually winning. You will never destroy the laws that protect artists and creators.

You slimeballs deserve every bit of invective you get here for being so greedy, and for promoting the ripping off of musicians.

And maybe not – who says anyone is looking to destroy artists anyway? Point is – technology is changing, they can get on-board or not, it’s up to them.

I suspect the tide of ‘peer to peer’ – will be harder to stop than it would be to eliminate these laws in any event.

But many companies have embraced new technology and business models – take NetFlix for instance. No laws have been changed, but that doesn’t change BlockBuster’s position… The one up the street from me just shut down.

If all this ‘peer to peer’ is killing profits – why is NetFlix basically kicking sand in the competition’s face?

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/26/netflix-profit-up-45-in-q4-nears-10-million-total-subscribers/

“Analysts were already anticipating a killer Q4 for Netflix, and unlike practically every other company on the face of the planet, it delivered. The movie rental firm somehow managed to see net income rise to $22.7 million in the quarter, up from $15.7 million in Q4 2007. Revenue was also up by 19 percent, and subscriber growth was pegged at an amazing 26 percent.”

Because they hit the ground running. Imagine.. the potential of media delivered to people in an easy to use and hassle free manner – kinda like NetFlix?

What kind of profit potential is there?

Sorry, but the market for the proverbial horse and buggy is dying. Doesn’t matter what’s made illegal – that will not change this simple fact: I am not willing to pay for the old business model anymore. I pay for cable – not for the sitcoms and 15 minute commercial spots – I pay for the on-demand.

The music industry’s business model sucks bad. I don’t even bother anymore. I just ripped the CD’s I have to digital files and listen to the same old stuff I have been. Otherwise there’s XM. But 99% of the new stuff just isn’t compelling – for the price – to buy.

Of course, lately – I managed to find a few new artists out there – independents that are pretty dang good..

And yes, I pay for my media, I’m not a leech. But if I’m going to pay for a product, it has to be a purchase that makes sense.

Would I buy an 8-track now? No.

What’s the sense in buying CD’s now? The technology jump between CD and Digital was even larger than the jump from 8-track to CD… by far.

Do music companies offer high quality physical disks with an entire band’s anthology on them in digital formats? You could put ALL of the Beatles tunes on a single DVD – two at most, depending on quality. But it’s not out there, is it?

You might be able to find some overpriced collection for $70.00 – but is that worth it – when the public is fully aware of the potential to use new technology?

Nope, it isn’t.

If you can’t give the customer what they desire – it’s a fault of the business, not the customer. We know the technology is out there and we will use it – doesn’t matter if the music industry likes it or not.

Overcast (profile) says:

*And read this again*

“Analysts were already anticipating a killer Q4 for Netflix, and unlike practically every other company on the face of the planet, it delivered. The movie rental firm somehow managed to see net income rise to $22.7 million in the quarter, up from $15.7 million in Q4 2007. Revenue was also up by 19 percent, and subscriber growth was pegged at an amazing 26 percent.”

How is it that they did THIS WELL – when people can just download movies? Care to explain that?

Oh I can – it’s because it’s a good, hassle free service. People don’t mind paying for media – but people don’t like getting ripped off.

Plain and simple – $17.00 for 15 songs – is a rip-off.

FormerAC (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Plain and simple – $17.00 for 15 songs – is a rip-off.

^This. The record companies have lied and colluded to fix prices at astronomical levels even as production costs declined.

I purchase lots of music. I won’t buy a CD at $17. I won’t pay more than $7-8 for an MP3 album. I don’t but anything from artists whose songs are priced $1.29 each. I might consider buying a used CD, but I am not giving them money when they are artificially inflating prices.

Darryl says:

Mike is not a liar but here is file footage of him with his pants on fire!

Get over it guys, MPAA is not a lobby group any more than the building industry, or auto industry, the defense industry etc.

No, as Mike well know, they are a representative body, and every body, and everybody has a right to provide opinion to the government, is that not your first amendment right ?

Mike you lobby ALL THE FREAKING TIME, so what make what you do any different to what this guy does, except he’s being paid ?

You Mike lobby far more than he ever will !

As for the million dollars a year, that is probably a pay drop for him. Or would you rather he buy and run TPB ?

Mike you have BALLS to call anyone a liar, Mike you are the master of spin.

And he is not employed as a registered lobbyist, neither I would assume is the MPAA, so who is the liar?

Seems more like your the one telling porkies Mike.

But we are used to that from you, we almost expect it! unfortunately.

Darryl says:

Re: Re: Mike is not a liar but here is file footage of him with his pants on fire!

YES just like the military industry, the auto industry, and the Scotch mist industry, the electronics and computing industry, and so on and so on..

An industry representative body, has a duty to YOU KNOW, represent that industry. that means doing things and trying to enhance and improve and promote their industry.

That does not mean at all that their main function is to lobby, it is not,

If you want to hire a lobbiest you do not go to MPAA for that, that is not their core industry, but they are a representative body, therefore a voice for an industry.

As such I have the right, and requirement to do just that, representive body.

egbert says:

apart from showing what a liar he is, it shows how little concern politicians (and ex-politicians) have for the people they supposedly represent, the lengths they will go to to be elected in the first place and how they are more interested in feathering their own nests than doing the job they were elected to do. when the truth of their actions comes out, they then not only deny everything but do (or get done) what ever is needed to stifle those truths!

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop Β»

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...