« the future is Free Culture | Main | The Free Culture Movement: A Victory »
In the latest example of Word not keeping its secrets, Joi reports that the California Attorney General is circulating a draft letter condeming p2p sharing -- a letter authored by the MPAA.
| Permalink | technorati
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://lessig.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1206
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference ghost writing the CA Attorney General's policies:
» California attorney general preparing to slam P2P from Zinoblog
TITLE: California attorney general preparing to slam P2P
URL: http://zinovate.com/weblog/archive/2004/03/15/224.aspx
IP: 207.182.248.55
BLOG NAME: Zinoblog
DATE: 03/15/2004 07:54:14 PM [Read More]
» ghost writing the CA Attorney General's policies from EDDix News & Views
In the latest example of Word not keeping its secrets, Joi reports that the California Attorney General is circulating a draft letter condeming p2p -- sharing a letter authored by the MPAA.... [Read More]
Lessig Blog by Lawrence Lessig is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
Comments (8)
I agree that this is a bit bizarre -- and I am very much a pro p2p advocate -- however, to be fair, do we know that the letter was _authored_ by the MPAA or (just) edited/reviewed? It seems pretty normal, for example, for other government agencies -- such as public defenders to review positions with outside groups (such as child advocacy). Or, for atty generals to review things with consumer groups. Sometimes these outside groups may even author the letters.
I am just playing a bit of devil's advocate here . . . I am not so sure that either (a) the evidence that the letter was authored by the MPAA is present (or are we sure of that?), and even if it was authored -- or reviewed/edited -- by the MPAA , that (b) this is unusual for a government agency to run something by an outside group?
So, even if that were the case, shouldn't we also see the fingerprints of some of the information civil liberties groups on the doc as well? Say, the EFF, maybe?
I agree, one would hope that circulation would be wider spread. However, I'm not so sure (I may be wrong here) that the metafile shows all fingerprints. We apparently know that it shows the MPAA's, but that does not mean that others did not review it (of course given the forum here I bet that we can say with confidence that the EFF did not review it!)
My only point is that as a government official, if I am pre-disposed to a certain policy, it would be natural for me to turn to others that also have that policy and may have an interest in helping me develop it. If I were the atty general and looking to put out a pro consumer item, I would go to consumer advocates to help draft my position, not necessarily to big business AND consumer advocates.
These guys are predisposed for a certain position, so they seek someone to help them, ¿no?
Maybe I'm just babbling ... I am a pro p2p advocate and don't want to come across otherwise. However, the government, the RIAA and the MPAA all have agendas that are sometimes unusual (and that we may disagree with), but I'm not sure that we necessarily advance the counter-movement well through conspiracy theories -- unless there is a true conspiracy -- and I'm not sure that editing/authorship/review of a letter or position counts as one.
"A lobbyist with the Motion Picture Association of America confirmed that Lockyer's office had crafted the letter with the trade group's help."
"They sought our input. We didn't write the letter," said Vans Stevenson, senior vice president for state legislative affairs at the MPAA. "
http://www.forbes.com/markets/newswire/2004/03/15/rtr1298969.html
Do you have a non-Forbes story? I don't read them anymore but I'd like to hear more about this.
It's actually a Reuters story
">http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=internetNews&storyID=4571826§ion=news
Naturally, all seven members of the MPAA are contributors to Bill Lockyer's campaign.
He will likely be running for governor in 2006.
I think we might be missing the point here.
While it is true that legislators often consult with interest groups on topics subject to legislative action, a critical assumption about our lawmakers is that they have a working knowledge of the subjects related to proposed legislation.
A test of the depth of this understanding and therefore of their ability to critically judge information related to the subject of legislation is whether they can clearly express their opinion in written and verbal communication to their constituents and fellow legislators.
If our representatives are so mystified by the concepts involved with P2P sharing that they require an industry ghost-writer to draft proposals on this topic, then it should go without saying that they are not capable of responsibly considering any related legislation.