Tuesday, March 16, 2004

California Attorney General exposed as MPAA handpuppet

For once, my headline is hardly an exaggeration. According to a story at Wired News, analysis of the metadata included in a MS Word document in which the California Attorney General "characterizes P2P software as a "dangerous product" and describes the failure of technology makers to warn consumers of those dangers as a deceptive trade practice" shows that the document was, quite literally, written for him by the MPAA.

Are Californians really stupid enough to vote for people like this? The dollar amounts of the bribes -- er, contributions -- he's received from the "seven dwarves" of the MPAA show that he isn't just for sale -- he's for sale cheap.

(Link stolen from Lawrence Lessig's blog -- hey, I steal only the best!)

1 comment:

Felix said...

Trebor @ 9:52PM | 2004-03-16| permalink

This is what lobbyists do. Do you think Congress Persons have time to do their own research? Heck no. Do you think that they write with their own hands the legislation they sponsor? Heck no. Not only is this not worthy of an invigorating paranoid snit, it's really non-news.

I remember back in the day when I asked my battalion commander for a letter of recommendation to "Thee U." He said "sure, why don't you draft me up one so I'll know what you need."

All the P2P weenies need to do is draft up their own stuff and lobby, lobby, lobby. ~ Trebor

email | website

Felix @ 3:14PM | 2004-03-17| permalink

Guess I'm just naive and unsophisticated enough to think it's a bad idea to let rapacious corporate shills hand-write the laws of the nation for their private enrichment or the pursuance of their own personal grudges, without even so much as a cursory once-over from the Esteemed Representatives of The People.

Clearly you know better, or think you do.

email | website

Trebor @ 2:15AM | 2004-03-18| permalink

It works both ways, so be careful what you wish for.

Besides, while the bill may be authored by a special interest group, it must be voted into law by a majority of our representatives. If they wish to vote without looking, well, that cuts both ways, too ~ Trebor

email | website

Pablo @ 12:05PM | 2004-03-18| permalink

I am firmly on both sides of this issue.

Back when I was in health insurance, the Clintons were talking health care reform. Everyone was clearly his or her own special interest group. And everyone except people from the health insurance industry thought that health insurance was some sort of private charity with unlimited funds.

ONLY health insurers understood that health insurance is a risk management business, so they were the ONLY people were qualified to give advise on managing it effectively.

Doctors were making lots more money than workers in the health insurance industry, but no one was talking about that.

email | website