0

By David Rothman

Dan glickmanHere’s a job for the DNA experts. Can you take the genes from Atlantic Monthly contributor Eric Alterman, who wrote about Hollywood money without once mentioning copyright law, and combine them with those of the Hollywood Reporter journalist who has just written about the MPAA‘s legal initiatives while almost ignoring all those millions in campaign donations? Actually, to be exact, the Reporter piece is a Q&A with Dan Glickman, the incoming boss of the MPAA, shown here; but to a great extent it’s really a copyright article in disguise.

Detail: Notice I said “almost ignoring”? Here’s the full reference to money, a Glickman quote nicely couched in terms of a “bipartisan operation”:

THR: There has been minor grumbling about the hiring of a Democrat for this job.

Glickman: I tend to think the best way to deal with that is to reach out. I’ve gone to his office and met with (Senate Republican Caucus chief of staff) Mark Rogers. We had a very nice meeting, and I’ve been in contact with my friends on Capitol Hill as well. I don’t think these are irreconcilable problems; I intend to convince folks I (will) carry forward on the Jack Valenti bipartisan operation of this place. I’ve even gone to some Republican fund-raisers.

There you have it–Washington’s bipartisanship in all its elitist glory!

Update, September 1: Copyright‘s Ernest Miller zeros in on a tidbit in the Reporter item–the fact that “70% of the MPAA’s 250 employees are involved in anti-piracy work and that the anti-piracy office is ‘really where the interfaces with the studios’ are” Hey, what better reason to help justify MPAA’s existence? Imagine the horrors of less onerous and less complicated copyright laws; just think of all the black suits that MPAA might have to lay off.

 
0