Money Talks

The idea that Hollywood money comes with no strings attached is a tempting one, especially to liberals, and there's even some truth to it. But still, one should recognize the limits of such thinking. It's not a coincidence, after all, that American copyright law is tilted so heavily in favor of major record labels and movie and television studios.

Comments

Why is strings-free money a "tempting" thought? Anyone who gives money to a candidate or party does so with the idea that they'll be getting a worthwhile return on that investment.

It's just legalized bribery and everyone knows it. And it's not only the Democrats that do it.

Posted by Zagnut | May 10, 2007 8:48 AM

"It's not a coincidence, after all, that American copyright law is tilted so heavily in favor of major record labels and movie and television studios."

Or, y'know, maybe it is a bit of a coincidence, considering that the major record labels and movie and television studios are one of America's primary export industries, and that it's good economic policy to support exports.

Considering the nature of US exports, any US government of either party that didn't support strong overseas IP protection would have problems far beyond raising campaign contributions.

Posted by Petey | May 10, 2007 9:04 AM

So... what? Are you saying we have 95-year copyright terms because "Hollywood" gives money to "liberals"? Wouldn't it be a simpler explanation to note that most major-party politicians are unflinchingly pro-corporate and that the copyright industry is dominated by major corporations?

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | May 10, 2007 10:01 AM

The export theory explains why we'd push for stronger IP treaties, but doesn't explain why we'd have stronger domestic IP protection. Especially absurd things like retroactive copyright extensions.

So, I guess we're back to bribery.

Posted by Consumatopia | May 10, 2007 10:22 AM

Yeah, that darn liberal Sonny Bono and his Mickey Mouse bill!!

Posted by gonzone | May 10, 2007 10:24 AM

Matt,

For someone who sits around and watches Academy screeners with his dad, I'm surprised you're missing the distinction between the suits and the talent.

Dan Glickman works for the suits and whoever hosts the Oscars works for the talent. They have different economic interests (in both senses of the word)

Posted by beowulf | May 11, 2007 2:08 AM