RSS
Twitter
Don't Worry About MPAA's Congrats To Obama
from the step-back-from-the-ledge dept
A bunch of folks have been sending in Wired's short article claiming that the MPAA is "already lobbying Obama." And, while I'm certainly never one to suggest that the MPAA isn't full of sneaky tricks, this is hardly anything to get worked up about. I don't even understand why Wired posted it, other than to get people angry. The MPAA, like pretty much every major lobbying organization, put out statements congratulating Obama. That's what you do as a lobbying group, and it's entirely meaningless at this point. I have no doubt that the MPAA will pull plenty of misleading stunts over the next four years, and most likely will convince all sorts of politicians, including Obama, to put into place bad laws. But a simple congratulations statement from a lobbying group is hardly a sign of impending doom.
Reader Comments
(Flattened / Threaded)
The Facts
Actually if you follow the money, it is Very concerning. He is the number one recipient of that industry's money. Music included. Guess only time will tell what he will do with Intellectual Property laws. He is, after all, a lawyer, and those usually benefit most from the suits discussed here.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=B02
http://www.opens ecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: The Facts
Actually if you follow the money, it is Very concerning
I have *no doubt* that they will lobby the new administration very heavily. But to say that their congrats message was lobbying is a bit much.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re: The Facts
I have *no doubt* that they will lobby the new administration very heavily. But to say that their congrats message was lobbying is a bit much.
Agreed, they probably had two ads ready to fly. To say they 'will' lobby the new administration is misleading, they have already begun.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Good Job, Eleete!
LOL, Eleete is on it!
But more interesting is Dan Glickman's non-donation to the Obama Campaign. Perhaps he ran out of cash, or donating to Obama's Campaign was an afterthought.
I see the article as more of a love letter: "Come get super chummy and smoke a fat stogie with the head of the nation's greatest non-profit."
Funny.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Bush makes bad movies
It's well known in Hollywood Circles that Bush is the *real* reason the film industry hasn't been as profitable as it should have.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Incredible
Wow ... and I thought there were three branches of government.
Guess I was wrong. Sure am glad I read these comments.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Incredible
And who picks the only two options we get every 4 years for president? Members of congress. And who picks the supreme court justices? The president.
When you think about it, we haven't really had a president that bucked the system since JFK... and he got assassinated. Conspiracy theories aside you have to note that it makes for a hell of a coincidence.
Every candidate in decades has been more of the same with the exception of Reagan... and only because he had the charisma and money to run whether the established parties wanted him to or not. Each one has had less of a back bone than the last. Each one has been more and more in line with his parties rhetoric. And the Supreme Court? Well go do a comparison of which judges were appointed by which presidents... tell me you don't notice a pattern.
Yes we have three branches, but the lines between those branches in continuing to get more and more blurry with each passing decade while at the same time the power of the legislative branch continues to grow by leaps and bounds.
Think about it. This is the greatest danger of our existing (psuedo-)two party system. Look closely and you can even see the steps both dominant parties have taken to make sure there aren't any more parties rising to power.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
On the other hand, you can guarantee that they *will* be lobbying Obama's administration the second they're able to. At least there's some hope he'll listen to opposing points of views, whereas McCain would probably have listened to the industry lobbyists and nobody else...
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re:
Again, facts are handy, where does McCain rank on this site showing you where that industry money is going ? In fact where are the republicans regarding this ? I'm not for either party, but when you put the dollars next to the 'representative' it paints a pretty clear picture.
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.php?cycle=2008&ind=B02
http://www. opens ecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Re:
oops,
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=B02
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Hey Mike
Mr Masnick I am going to write you in as a suggestion to the Obama group for that new copyright czar position. You can help insure that the industries wouldn't ruin our country and the world more.
Whether you would accept if he actually did come and ask is a whole nother story. =P
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: Hey Mike
with the amount of money that hollywood pumped into the democratic candidates' coffers, you'll be lucky if they let mike or any other copyright reformer within a mile of the white house.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Obama is already owned
Looks like Mossad already owns Obama (he picked Rahm Emanuel, the son of a terrorist). Obama will probably let Mossad slide on their 9/11 involvement and Obama will continue their wars. So who won? Israel did, as always.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment