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. identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 16 Mar 2011 @ 6:29pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    Sigh, please elaborate... how has the holder's property changed "In both tangible and intangible ways."

    When it comes to property, control is everything. It is the fundamental legal right of property.

    Real property, personal property, and intellectual property are all subsets of property law. But control is common to all three.

    Let's say the creator of a DVD or CD decides to press 1000 copies. Those copies, along with the original work, comprise the tangible definition of that particular piece of property. The intangible aspect is how many more he can choose to make at his discretion, which will affect its scarcity, and thus its value. Either way, he has control.

    If someone makes copies without his permission it fundamentally changes the value of the property, and thus the property itself.

    So you can't say an owner has still kept his property untouched when a copy is made without authorization. Therefore trying to dismiss the theft analogy doesn't work.

    control is relative, you control the medium, but not what people do with it.

    Wrong. On the back of every CD/DVD are the terms of what you can and can not legally do with 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: Copying Is Not Theft
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.