Comments on: An IP Perspective on This Film is Not Yet Rated http://madisonian.net/2006/09/11/an-ip-perspective-on-this-film-is-not-yet-rated/ a blog about law, tech, culture, and related things Thu, 10 May 2012 20:32:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Frank Pasquale http://madisonian.net/2006/09/11/an-ip-perspective-on-this-film-is-not-yet-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-76876 Frank Pasquale Wed, 13 Sep 2006 13:11:46 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=789#comment-76876 Well, I never proposed a direct quid pro quo. I referenced the campaign finance lit above because of work like Edsall's. Edsall demonstrated that even if one could not demonstrate a direct quid pro quo of donations-for-favors (ala the Duke CUnningham menu of bribes-for-contracts), one could still show how increasing corporate funding of elections led to certain kinds of candidates finding more favor (by, for example, scaring away challengers by winning a "dollar primary.") The law & society lit also emphasizes how the cases that get to court may be vastly unrepresentative of the range of behaviors conditioned by law & money. In this example, I'm just adumbrating the many symbolic and cash exchanges going on between lobbyists and the lobbied. If we are to imagine some aspect of copyright law being debated next week, Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, or Creative Commons, can't visit senators and say "look how we've satisfied your constituents by establishing a review board that "routes around" the constitution" (ala Froomkin's article on ICANN routing around the APA)). Valenti, and his successor, Dan Glickman, can. (Though I was very surprised the industry resisted the Norquist K-Street strategy and appointed a former Clinton official...but as the net neutrality debate shows ala McCurry, these people can very effectively disarm the usual left suspicion of corporate initiatives.) Well, I never proposed a direct quid pro quo. I referenced the campaign finance lit above because of work like Edsall’s. Edsall demonstrated that even if one could not demonstrate a direct quid pro quo of donations-for-favors (ala the Duke CUnningham menu of bribes-for-contracts), one could still show how increasing corporate funding of elections led to certain kinds of candidates finding more favor (by, for example, scaring away challengers by winning a “dollar primary.”) The law & society lit also emphasizes how the cases that get to court may be vastly unrepresentative of the range of behaviors conditioned by law & money.

In this example, I’m just adumbrating the many symbolic and cash exchanges going on between lobbyists and the lobbied. If we are to imagine some aspect of copyright law being debated next week, Gigi Sohn of Public Knowledge, or Creative Commons, can’t visit senators and say “look how we’ve satisfied your constituents by establishing a review board that “routes around” the constitution” (ala Froomkin’s article on ICANN routing around the APA)). Valenti, and his successor, Dan Glickman, can. (Though I was very surprised the industry resisted the Norquist K-Street strategy and appointed a former Clinton official…but as the net neutrality debate shows ala McCurry, these people can very effectively disarm the usual left suspicion of corporate initiatives.)

]]> By: Bruce Boyden http://madisonian.net/2006/09/11/an-ip-perspective-on-this-film-is-not-yet-rated/comment-page-1/#comment-76625 Bruce Boyden Tue, 12 Sep 2006 16:55:02 +0000 http://madisonian.net/?p=789#comment-76625 Valenti sets up the ratings board in 1967 . . . and the industry gets favorable legislation in 1998? That's quite a long wait for the "quo!" I think this makes more sense as a lobbying soundbite than as an actual argument. Valenti sets up the ratings board in 1967 . . . and the industry gets favorable legislation in 1998? That’s quite a long wait for the “quo!” I think this makes more sense as a lobbying soundbite than as an actual argument.

]]>