Revolving Door: US Copyright Office General Counsel Becomes IFPI Lobbyist
from the system-failure dept
We've pointed out over and over again that the revolving door between the government and the big copyright maximalists represents a broken system -- and we're seeing it yet again. David Carson, the long time General Counsel of the US Copyright Office has announced that he's leaving that job... to become head of global legal policy for the IFPI (the international version of the RIAA). His role will be to "coordinate the recorded music industry's legal policy strategy worldwide." Think he'll have undue influence with the US Copyright Office? He's only been in General Counsel of the US Copyright Office for 15 years. Of course, the IP-Watch story linked above shows how the revolving door works both ways. In effect, Carson is replacing Shira Perlmutter, who left the IFPI role earlier this year... to become the chief policy advisor on IP issues for the US Patent and Trademark Office.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, david carson, lobbyists, revolving door, shira perlmutter, us copyright office, us government, uspto
Companies: ifpi
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm not arguing with your premise that it looks bad, but I'm not sure what the solution should be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You would be free to work anywhere else, of course.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You would be free to work anywhere else, of course.
Then if you were barred from working in your area of expertise, who'd take a government policy job to begin with?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I better question is whether the US Copyright office is excluding any other job applicants that are also qualified?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Really, this is even narrower a restriction than the noncompetes that many people sign when they take certain jobs (I'm under one right now!) With those, you are barred from working for any other company that does the same thing as the one you got hired in. People sign them anyway because the restriction still do not prevent you from working in your area of expertise -- only one segment of your area of expertise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Undue influence? If anything, I expect him to have a rougher time because they know jackwagons like you will be watching their every move. I don't think it's a plus.
I am also trying to figure out why you feel that people who specialize in a narrow field should suddenly not be allowed to change jobs. You seem to be all for limiting their rights to work just to satisfy your personal campaign against copyright. That is a real shame, and shows your colors loud and proudly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Unfortunately, it does not appear to be enforced except for the lower echelon folks (and it only really applies to folks in the Executive Branch, and not Congress or the Judicial system.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://www.dcbar.org/for_lawyers/ethics/legal_ethics/600.cfm
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You're not supposed to take a government job to "work in you area of expertise" a.k.a. get job experience. You are supposed to take a government job to serve the public good.
Yes, that's why few people used to take government jobs. What we have now is corruption of the system, plain and simple.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
You're comically overstating the case.
The logic behind it is obvious and simple: corporations bribe regulators and politicians by offering them cushy jobs when they leave office. That kind of corruption is out of control and needs to stop.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
That makes sense. So he was involved in cases that involved IFPI (or I guess its member companies, since it's a trade association).
Anyone know how to find out what cases he was dealing with to see which IFPI members were involved?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
It means you already have experience and skill and knowledge over something and thus are a reasonably good candidate to work in government positions related to said experience, skill and knowledge.
The problem is you both want experts to be able to accurately decide issues, yet you want people who aren't beholden to the very industry they are regulating. If you're really good at, knowledgeable of and experienced in a particular industry, odds are you already work for them.
It's a catch 22 that needs regulation to mitigate the downsides while also encouraging some upside.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
He no likey the chuck norris facts jokes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, now, precisely because the system is corrupted. It wasn't always so. And it doesn't have to continue being so. We don't have to put up with institutionalized corruption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The problem actually arises from the existence of copyright law. Abolish copyright law and the problem goes away.
The difficulty arises from the nature of laws that establish private monopolies and/or private taxation rights. It is impossible to move from government to a company that benefits from the government in this way without the sdmell of corruption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
High governement officials have similar restrictions, though on a lower level we have had lots of "downsizing" where the work ended up being done by consultants who were the civil servants doing that before said downsizing (for commercial prices paid by local government, of course).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sure, this problem goes away. But don't you think the problem exists in other regulatory spheres as well? Do we also get rid of drug law (FDA), communications law (FCC), securities law (SEC)?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I do not know enough about the educations you would need for these jobs, so it could easily be unproblematic with noncompetes, but you have to be specific.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
The attorney gave you good advice -- and it's advice that applies equally well to any contractual restrictions, not just noncompetes. This is for two reasons: First, a contract is primarily about making sure that everyone is agreeing to the same deal and there are no misunderstandings. Greater specificity means greater clarity. Second, the more specific the terms are, the harder it is for someone to find wiggle room to screw you with.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
err copyright law is an example of the government granting favours to people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Initially, there was some resistance, but after about a year, he embraced it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe he has learned from history, maybe not, but he has definately not kicked and screamed in public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
http://www.ip-watch.org/2012/08/29/revolving-door-us-copyright-general-counsel-joins-music-indu stry/
People continue to speak of the fate of the IMR and it being run by a former CISAC legal counsel. This person is also running other Private sector projects and some eyebrows are being raised as to the intent of some of these projects. There is more but we will wit for Reuters to get hold of that news.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/30/us-un-feud-idUSBRE87T0UR20120830
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]