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
    Greevar (profile), 16 Mar 2011 @ 6:37pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

    "You seem to think theft can only occur with something physical, which is incorrect and ignorant of the law."

    Talk about being ignorant of the law. The law defines theft as the act of taking something away which, in doing so, deprives the owner of their lost property. How, in any way, does making a copy (which actually makes more of something, not less) result in the rights holder having less than what they had previously? Copying a copyrighted work is an infringement of the author's copyrights applied to that work, nothing more. You're obviously trying to conflate infringement and theft to intensify the social stigma against infringement.

    Copying is the majority act of infringement. If you want to make the law treat it as theft, then you're going down a dangerous path that would criminalize the act of copying regardless of intent or purpose. Creative works are not property, that's why it's not theft and it's that way for a reason. They were very careful to call the copyright property and not the thing it applies to. Why? It's because after the copyright expires (because it's not your property, that's why it's "temporary"), it reverts to the public domain which is everyone's property.

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
Special Affiliate Offer

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.