IP Czar Won't Be In The Most Sensible Place Because Industry Doesn't Like It?

from the since-when-does-industry-dictate-stuff? dept

Fri, Sep 4th 2009 8:58am — Mike Masnick

As you may remember, last year, thanks to lots of lobbying from the entertainment industry, Congress passed the totally unnecessary "ProIP" act, which made copyright even more draconian. Luckily, the most ridiculous parts of the bill -- like getting the Justice Department involved in civil litigation over copyright -- was dropped. But there was still plenty of bad stuff in there -- including the establishment of an "IP Czar" or "Copyright Czar" who would basically be the entertainment industry's personal representative in the White House, in charge of "coordinating" (i.e., "driving") strategy on making sure that the entertainment industry's obsolete business model is always protected directly from the White House.

Earlier this year, the Senators who pushed this through got antsy and pleaded with the White House to hurry up and appoint someone to the post. In response, the White House sent Joe Biden to an industry gathering, where he promised that the White House would pick "the right person" to represent the industry's interests. And yet... since then, there's been nothing.

It's been a poorly kept secret that Victoria Espinel is likely to be the IP Czar -- and, as former IP person at the USTR (who has always been strongly in support of stronger IP), it definitely seems like the industry will be happy with her. But why has it taken so long? Michael Scott points us to a report from last month that the "problem" is that the White House can't figure out where to place this role:

A stand-alone office. While this is probably the most desirable in terms of making the position as prominent within the Administration as IP owners would like, it remains [an] uphill battle.
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). OSTP is known for espousing views that are less then favorable to the IP community. Placing the IP Czar within OSTP would make no more sense than coupling Oscar and Felix (or for a more modern reference, coupling Harry Potter with Voldemort).
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). If a stand-alone office is not in the cards than this may be the best alternative. While OMB does not usually establish policy, it does coordinate with numerous agencies on various projects, which is certainly within the purview of the IP czar.
Of course, OSTP is the department that makes the most sense -- but as the writeup notes, the folks in OSTP are actually more technologically focused, and are believers in openness and collaboration -- and are the sorts of folks who are skeptical of the need for greater IP protection (and, yes, some of them read Techdirt). But... given the role, it does seem like the most reasonable spot. In fact, it seems rather problematic that the White House would agree not to put it there, just because the entertainment industry is afraid that OSTP isn't going to just bend over for the copyright industry's interests. If Hollywood is basically getting their own representative in the White House, at the very least it seems fair to temper that position by putting it in a department that will at least debate how strong copyright protection needs to be.

The fact that the White House hasn't simply placed the role in OSTP certainly feels like it agreeing not to do that because the industry lobbyists who pushed for the role in the first place won't like it. That doesn't seem like the way government should be run.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright czar, ip czar, ostp, ustr, victoria espinel

21 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Free Capitalist (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 9:32am

"(or for a more modern reference, coupling Harry Potter with Voldemort)."

Good reference but I think the pairing would more acurately be analogous to the relationship between Harry (OSTP) and the scar Voldemort left on his head (IP Czar in captivity).

While the big media co.s would be Voldemort himself, lurking, soul shattered in an Albanian wilderness, waiting for someone to come bail his ass out.

Use the scar against him Harry! Read his mind!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 9:44am

It's not what you think
Never attribute to lobbying that which can be adequately explained by the normal pace of government action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Free Capitalist (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 9:48am
  
  Re: It's not what you think
  Wait.. I thought lobbying was the normal pace and impetus of government action in absence of a public uproar...
  
  Or did this Czar notion spring from the earth fully grown of its own accord?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 9:55am
  
  Re: It's not what you think
  "Never attribute to lobbying that which can be adequately explained by the normal pace of government action."
  
  And never attribute to the normal pace of government action what can be explained by the slow, methodical workings of the wealthy elite....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Marcus Carab (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 3:25pm
    
    Re: Re: It's not what you think
    And never attribute to the wealthy elite what can adequately explained by wealthy elite lawyers.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
..., 4 Sep 2009 @ 9:54am

So
When do I get someone in washington to represent me ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: So
  "When do I get someone in washington to represent me?"
  
  It's kind of stunning what a legitimate question that actually is....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MC, 4 Sep 2009 @ 10:02am
  
  Re: So
  That one's pretty obvious. When you start generating millions in tax revenue. Not only will the government pay more attention, but you'll be able to buy the representative of your choice.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Doe, 4 Sep 2009 @ 10:05am
    
    Re: Re: So
    When you start generating millions in tax revenue. Not only will the government pay more attention, but you'll be able to buy the representative of your choice.
    And then you get to pay even less in taxes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Derek Kerton (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 12:03pm
    
    Re: Re: So
    Hmmm. But consumers, as a group, DO pay the biggest chunk of tax revenues of any group. That doesn't seem to matter.
    
    What matters is campaign contributions, wining and dining, private jet flights to cool places, etc.
    
    Taxes buy you nothing. Taxes are like paying for the meal, lobbying is like tipping. Only the big tippers are getting any good service.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- IshmaelDS (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 10:04am
  
  Re: So
  I've been wondering the same thing for a long time.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 11:16am
  
  Re: So
  Didn't a bunch of guys get into a bit of a scuffle over being taxed but not being adequately represented?
  
  I never was very good at History.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 11:35am
    
    Re: Re: So
    Then you're probably doomed to repeat it unfortunately. And I think it's a fair thing to state that a vast majority of the U.S. middle-class is in the same boat.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Derek Kerton (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 12:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: So
      Repeating it sounds better and better...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 12:39pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: So
      I thought it was sarcasm
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 10:28am

The REAL problem is regulatory capture.
Inevitably, regulatory agencies become captives of the industries they're supposed to keep an eye on. The FCC delayed FM broadcasting for years because the AM stations "didn't like it." The ICC eventually got so bad that it was abolished. The FDA is openly in bed with Big Pharma. The CAB for years "regulated" competition right out of the airline industry.

Examples go on and on, because people keep forgetting that the most important question a bureaucrat ever asks is: "What will I do after I leave government service?" and a job in the industry they "regulate" is the obvious answer, since they know the territory. And nobody wants to knock over their own rice bowl.

A "Copyright Czar" will inevitably make darn sure that "established businesses" will be copyrighted/DRMed/"by any means necessary" kept in the game, and upstarts kept out. If you want to kill innovation in the "intellectual property" industries, you can't do it better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TesserId (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 11:09am

Light of Day
...the "problem" is that the White House can't figure out where to place this role...
We should wonder about the relationship with the Copyright Royalty Board.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thomas (profile), 4 Sep 2009 @ 12:29pm

Consumers will get screwed again
Derek is right. taxes don't put people in office. Bribes, gifts of hookers(of both sexes), heroin, cocaine, travel, food, wine, and the like get you results, which count. That's the way government works; the rich have the money to bribe the government and the taxpayers don't. Once in office elected officials have two big concerns: returning favors to people who got them into office and getting re-elected. Helping the people that voted for them is about dead last in their priorities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lawrence D”Oliveiro, 4 Sep 2009 @ 3:59pm

Did Somebody Say “iPizza”?
Wonder what that would taste like...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Sep 2009 @ 4:05pm

Another example of congress trying to find scapegoats to do their dirty work for them. Why can't congress OWN UP to the laws that are passed, why must they delegate scapegoats to pass bad laws that no one wants?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Derek Reed, 4 Sep 2009 @ 4:27pm

RE: Consumers will get screwed again
"returning favors to people who got them into office and getting re-elected. Helping the people that voted for them is about dead last in their priorities."

You said yourself that getting re-elected is in their priority list. It's not so much that they have 0 motivation to represent people, there's at least some there. For example, if an industry tried to get a politician to pass a law making it mandatory to rape babies, that politician might not get re-elected. There are some limits, and those limits are defined but the common folk complacency.

Every fuck up like this is just one step closer to getting a few more people "out there" to say "what the fuck man?". Look on the bright side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]