Inauspicious Start For Chris Dodd At MPAA; Starts Off With 'Infringement No Different Than Theft' Claim

from the they-pay-you-$1.5-million-to-lie dept

No surprise, really, but former Senator Chris "I won't become a lobbyist" Dodd has begun his new tenure as a lobbyist for the MPAA on an inauspicious note -- by falsely claiming that infringement is no different than "looting."
"You know if you walk down main street people would arrest you if you walk into a retail store and stole items," Dodd said. "It's called looting in some cases. That's exactly what is happening with intellectual property. It's being looted and that needs to stop."
So, it looks like more of the same from the MPAA: more focusing on the wrong problem. More blaming everyone else for their own failures to adapt. More playing the victim. And, for that, they're "only" paying Dodd $1.5 million, an increase from the $1.2 million they paid predecessor Dan Glickman. The entire MPAA budget is about $100 million per year, and they spend almost none of that money on actually helping the industry adapt, but throw tons of money away lobbying for laws that won't help (and that trample the rights of others). Can't we just skip ahead to the inevitable failures and try something different?

Filed Under: chris dodd, lobbying
Companies: mpaa

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Chosen Reject (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 2:02pm


    Our legal systems have no other way to describe it.
    That's a pretty bold statement. Especially when it was our legal systems that created infringement in the first place. Long before there was government, people were claiming other people stole their stuff. The cavemen had no concept of copyright infringement. For thousands of years after governments were instituted, there was still no concept of copyright infringement, but there was still very much the legal concept of stealing someone's property.

    Then governments started codifying copyrights and lo and behold, they did not use the already codified stealing and theft laws to enforce it. Instead, they created a whole new concept of copyright infringement. So yes, thankyouverymuch, our legal system has a way to describe it. It's called copyright infringement, and it doesn't involve the taking of someone else's property. It involves the illegal duplication of someone's creative works.

    As for your Best Buy analogy, I ask, what did you take? Nothing. Best Buy still has the DVDs. You made copies of copyrighted works. Hence theft isn't in the equation. You made a copy of a work you weren't supposed to make a copy of. That is called copyright infringement for a reason. Theft requires you take something from someone else. Copyright requires that you copy something without permission. It's all very simple, and our legal system very much has ways to describe it.

Add Your Comment

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

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

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