Slashdot Mirror
Key Music Industry Lawyer Named EU Copyright Chief
halfEvilTech writes "The European Union's new point person on copyright policy won't take up her post until mid-April, but she's already stirring up controversy. That's because Maria Martin-Prat spent years directing 'global legal policy' for IFPI, the global recording industry's London-based trade group, before moving back into government. The appointment raises new questions about the past private-sector work of government officials, especially those crafting policy or issuing legal judgments on the same issues they once lobbied for."
Yet another example of regulatory capture at work.
Hasn't this same thing been going on in America for ages? You work as a corporate lawyer, then you lobby, then you get elected. When you're in office, you build in a few loopholes, and when you get ousted you work as a lawyer exploiting those loopholes.
We now live in a global oligarchy. What is the peaceful solution to this?
In the meantime, DO NOT GIVE YOUR MONEY TO THESE PEOPLE. Yes, I know you love your new Lord of the Rings DVD box set, but you're financing the copyright cartels. Either pirate or go without.
The name that speaks for its holder.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Ram A Rat In Mi Prat
Set your phasers on "funky"!
The summary reads like this is of extra concern. Would there be concern if a previous Anti-Copyright campaigner got the seat? Would you rather someone with no knowledge on the topic got the position?
Peoples knowledge, experience and ideals always stems from where a person has come from: Be it business, culture, arts, community.
I would wager that most people aim for positions in political office because they either know about, care for, or are passionate in some way about the seat for which they aim. (and yes, passion can come from being paid to care)
. .
So the US lobbies successfully imposed to EU the same stupidity that they got at home...
Basically copyrights and patents are the "semi religious framework" that justifies sending money from all over the world, and preferably reasonably rich countries to the US without stating the obvious, we should anyway because the US got the biggest army and secret services...
this sucks
Seriously, why do they keep putting people in charge who only see one side of the issues? Why even have the position at all?
Wouldn't it just be easier to just come out and say "We are the puppets of the copyright industry and we will go with whatever they say". It's honest, to the point, and everyone knows where they stand.
whose very name evokes all form of nostalgia (dear), gender (both), chosenism (usury) & unity of same. she's a stock tout, usually wheeled out before another horrific wealth disintegration is scheduled.
as for deaths' pr guys; they usually sound as though they've sucked hot tea up their nose, & every word/breath includes some suffering.
Europe is as broken and corrupt as the US is, I wonder how long it takes before they really drown, the US is almost there, dunno the status of Europe.
So you think Charles Manson is a good analogy for industry-backed enforcement against casual piracy?
...that she'll be making after she leaves the gov.
This make absolutelly no sense. A lobbyist putting in charge? Whats worse than that? ...well.. lobbyist lawyers control me!
I don't pay the taxes so
WTF!?
FUCK WITH THIS PERSON!
-Woof woof woof!
Let's hope she just cuts all of her prior connections and devotes herself to her new duty.
Yes. Why couldn't they come up with somebody more even handed, like Obama's IP Czar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OExykL5QnXY
If you're going to appoint an attorney in charge of government copyright policy, the thing to do is to get someone with relevant experience. Would you prefer an attorney whose expertise is in Animal Husbandry to get this job?
And if you think it's one of the "bad guys" instead of one of the "good guys" (girls) getting the job... well, working attorneys in copyright (and other "intellectual property" areas) are usually working to protect and monetize the "property" in question. You'd probably have a tough time coming up with a good list of candidates, with good resumes, for the job who share your ideology (or mine) on the issue. Someone like Stephan Kinsella would be both qualified and share our sentiments, but I'm sure he doesn't want the job, nor the job him.
....when they start appointing new judges to the European Court of Human Rights.
He's a 'former civil servant.....put in charge of dossiers' directly related to his former employer/dictatorship....
My opinion will probably be an unpopular one on Slashdot, but a job's a job. There should be an impartiality regulator in all goernments, something of an Inquisition who can thoroughly investigate the lives, private and public, of high level government employees. I understand the recording industry and actual careers like law are more than a little different, but just because someone has been working for McDonalds for a few years doesn't mean they're going to go work for KFC and actively sabotage them. In practice, in the US, officials with this background have proven time and time again they are NOT impartial, but all people have the right to quit one job and work somewhere else. Everyone here treats a recording industry job like the slaver tatoo in Fallout 2. A permanent black mark that everyone will recognise on sight.
I don't mean to say we shouldn't care where our officials come from, by all means be wary, but not everyone is going to be evil (I think that may be the biggest compliment I've ever paid anyone).
Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
Let's say Joe Bloggs is elected King of the United States.
This would be highly controversial.
But unless Joe Bloggs has actively done something controversial, he is not "stirring up controversy". To stir up controversy is an accusative phrase with negative connotations, and something that can be held against you: "Joe Bloggs is someone who stirs up controversy". In this case that is not warranted, because the appointment was not made by the person in question.
that there is a problem with copyright? Their propensity to hiring industry representatives seems to indicate that they don't get it or are being bought or both. Nobody agrees with the draconian measures employed by rightsholders except governments. I guess it's just not important enough to enough people for politicians to worry about their jobs especially when the industry is willing to spend so much money currying favor. I don't understand why people are not more outraged that their governments are being turned into copyright cops at taxpayes'r expense and contra to taxpayers' interests.
So how is this person unbiased? They spent years making money without legal stick promoting a position. Now they aren't being paid as much (I suppose), but have legal sticks. Has their opinion changed? Do they still collect a retainer from their past employers? Isn't this a bit like putting Tony Hayward (CEO of British Petroleum) in charge of environmental protection in the Gulf of Mexico?
Fox meet Henhouse, Henhouse, meet Fox.
Funny, I read "copyright thief" at first.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
corrupted bitch
if you use https://duckduckgo.com/ as search engine, it will give you https links where they exist, like for wikipedia/wiktionary etc etc
http://ddg.gg/
... it's a feature".
"I'm taking this loop off." - Jack O'Neill
Give it a few more years and the world's enforcement on music policies will make reality look like the ill-fated Aerosmith arcade shooter Revolution X where faceless goons with guns are everywhere trying to bust people for owning music.
Two MEPs, Christian Engström from the Swedish Pirate Party and Marietje Schaake from Dutch liberal party D66, have submitted a formal question to the European Commission (the EU government). The commission is obliged to reply within a couple of weeks, though there will probably be no real answer.
Much easier to make something new and useful than to figure out how old paradigms can make money out of something new and useful. Can we just require any new technology provide a healthy retirement community for those vested in older business structures?
Hello Cruel World
> So you think Charles Manson is a good analogy for industry-backed enforcement against casual piracy?
That all depends what kind of mechanisms and punishments this "enforcement" is going to depend on, doesn't it?
If the penalty for minor infringement was raised to imprisonment "as a deterrent", then I'd guess that the overall damage to the quality of life of the general public would be greater overall than that caused by Manson, no matter how horrific his relatively few murders were. I'd even dare to say that this might be true even if we're not talking about imprisonment, but rather, extreme financial hardship, like imposing bankruptcy. And perhaps it might be comparable even if we'd only be talking about outlawing anonymity, because of it's chilling effects on self-expression.
And before you accuse me of putting up strawmen, think about this: you yourself emphasized casual, and the more casual an infringement is, the more relatively draconian and invasive are the measures which would be needed to effectively stamp it out.