Entertainment Industry Get Their Own 'Piracy Police' In The Justice Department

from the thank-you,-joe-biden dept

Remember back in December when Vice President Joe Biden hosted a one-sided "piracy summit", ridiculously declaring that "all of the stakeholders" were present (despite there not being a single representative from the technology industry, nor anyone representing consumer interests or ISPs). The "stakeholders" were entirely the entertainment industry. And, even better, despite promises of openness and transparency, the press was kicked out so top execs from most of the major entertainment industry companies could collude talk directly with many of the top administration officials, including Joe Biden, Attorney General Eric Holder, Commerce Secretary Gary Locke and others. You knew that this wasn't just a random meet and greet and that something would come out of it.

And, indeed, less than two months later, we have Eric Holder announcing a special "IP task force" within the Justice Department designed to take on "the rise in intellectual property crime." Given how many former RIAA/MPAA lawyers ended up at the Justice Department, perhaps this is no surprise. But given that it now appears that the entertainment industry was able to create their own private enforcement division within the Justice Department without a single ounce of public discussion or transparency, and no input from those concerned about consumer rights or technology innovation, shouldn't someone be asking why the Justice Department is now functioning as a private police force to prop up the business models of a group of companies who refuse to adapt, even as plenty of upstarts have figured out how to make new business models work?

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    Derek Kerton (profile), 22 Feb 2010 @ 2:52pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: TAM FAIL again

    TAM,

    RE: Google paying for content.

    "They do now, only under force, and didn't want to at all. Youtube was started without any intention of paying any royalties on anything, and they went through many variations of not wanting to pay."

    What part of being completely wrong are you unable to register? You have a notable disconnect with fact and reality. You say Google doesn't pay ANYTHING, then someone points out HR costs, you say, "But that's like rent on a store, the content is still pilfered. [sidestep]" Then someone points out that Goog in fact DOES pay for youtube content, and you say "Yeah, but only recently and under force. [sidestep]"

    Your crippled dancing and sidesteps don't remotely obfuscate the obvious: You got pointed out as completely wrong.

    Your argument is like you said "The US is a country without any constitution, Bill of Rights, or democracy!" Then, after you are proven wrong, you respond: "It's only just recently, and because the founders forced it." OK, so what? You're still 180 degrees wrong, a moron, and/or a full of BS.

    Put me in the camp that thinks you are: a shill, one who forms illogical arguments, mentally weak, and not a credit to your side in these debates. I think we respond to you because it frustrates us when someone takes it on the chin so often, but is just too punch-drunk to even realize it.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.