Revolving Door Revolves Some More: Head Of Copyright Office Leaves To Join MPAA
from the hollywood's-hooks dept
For many years we've been covering the rather disturbing revolving door between the US Copyright Office and Hollywood. This includes a bunch of copyright maximalists going back and forth between entertainment industry lobbying organizations and government positions. It seems to happen over and over and over again. Indeed, the former head of the Copyright Office, Maria Pallante, now leads the Association of American Publishers, where she's been advocating for ever more ridiculous copyright laws.
And, now we find out that the current head of the Copyright Office, Karyn Temple, a former RIAA VP, who only just became the official Copyright Register (after a few years of being the "interim" Copyright Register after Pallante was fired), has jumped ship to the MPAA. Because of course.
Karyn A. Temple, one of the world’s leading authorities on copyright, has been named Senior Executive Vice President and Global General Counsel at the Motion Picture Association, Chairman and CEO Charles Rivkin announced today.
Temple will join the association in January after serving more than eight years in the U.S. Copyright Office, most recently as the Register of Copyrights, where she fulfilled her statutory authority to administer U.S. copyright law and advise members of the U.S. Congress, federal courts, and executive branch agencies on issues of copyright law and policy.
This is all perfectly legal, but given some of the many questions people have raised over the years about why the Copyright Office frequently appears to be more an arm of Hollywood, rather than the American public (as is supposed to be the case), this move should raise a few more eyebrows. It won't, of course. This is just how things are done.
But even Hollywood folks should be concerned about this. For all the laughable claims it makes about how we need more "respect" for copyright, the one doing the most to undermine that respect is Hollywood itself, with such a blatant display of "soft corruption." No one actually believes the Copyright Office has any of the public's interests in mind, when the head of the office is simultaneously lining up her next job directly with Hollywood's biggest lobbyist.
No one respects copyright because Hollywood has made sure it deserves no respect.
Oh, and I guess it deserves mention that the reason the MPAA needed a General Counsel is because the last one got arrested on charges of blackmail and sexual assault.
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, copyright office, karyn temple, lobbying, public interest, revolving door
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
from the copyright holder's viewpoint.
So what does everyone predict would happen if copyright was abolished entirely in the world?
Short term less than 3 days: pandemonium as industries and artists grapple with the fact that they cant control what they have made in the past and now must continuously produce or go away.
Afterwards, ah who are we kidding? The world has ended because no one wants to create anymore.
/s (in case you can't detect satire)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pro tip: They are "MPA" now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
When a police officer or forensic lab tech is found to be compromised, all of the cases they worked on are officially called into question. Did the officer coerce a suspect in this case too? Did the lab tech falsify these test results too?
In cases like this, I wonder why things aren't officially called into question in a similar way. While we say it in places like TechDirt, does it ever get formally addressed? The question exists in either direction: If you worked for the industry before joining the regulatory agency, how can we know that your actions won't be for the benefit of your former (or maybe current/future? /tinfoil) employers? If you worked for the agency first and then join the industry, how can we know that you weren't taking actions to benefit the industry in order to secure a future position?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because copyright is the sort of law that has somehow convinced the entire judiciary to spread their legs without lube whenever "copyright!" is uttered like "Open Sesame".
It's how we get a slew of judges that, only until recently, finally got it into their heads that single IP addresses did not constitute sufficient evidence to nail anyone for copyright infringement, while everyone and their grandma can scream "copyright!" to resolve anything from negative critique to blueprint designs to getting rid of tough stains fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"While we say it in places like TechDirt, does it ever get formally addressed?"
Sort of. "regulatory capture" has been an inflammatory topic of discussion for a long time. Main issue is, neither of the parties WANT the debate since any investigation would first of all reveal to what extent THEY infiltrated important bodies intended to stay impartial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Follow the money. Entertainment industries spend a ton of money on lobbying, and no elected official is going to willingly give up their lip grip on the money teat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That should be surprising? Name one industry that heavily lobbies that don't have skyscrapers of revolving doors installed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Industry lube has conflict of interest before he even leaves his old job.
I’ll just keep it in mind. It’s not surprising it’s just something to use if he ever brings up his fake impartial views which he undoubtedly will one time or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you mean "rube", not "lube".
They don't use lube where he's going.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why all these revolving doors?
Because the people going through them are principled. The principle is greed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]