0

By

Another obnoxious, anti-Net proposal–this one from Delaware Sen. Joseph Biden, a Democrat carrying water for copyright aristocrats. As reported by Declan McCullagh of CNET, “Biden’s new bill would make it a federal felony to try and trick certain types of devices into playing your music or running your computer program. Breaking this law–even if it’s to share music by your own garage band–could land you in prison for up to five years. And that’s not counting the civil penalties of up to $25,000 per offense.”

The TeleRead take: Sen. Biden isn’t as obvious a property of the entertainment industry as Rep. Howard Berman, but the press would do well to check him out. For the 2002 race, old Joe has received at least $215,200 from the Los Angeles-Long Beach area compared to $542,750 or more from the Wilmington-Newark area. What’s more, the New York area, home to its share of entertaintment companies, has sent Biden at least $360,652. Compare those totals to the geographical breakdown for other senators, such as John Warner here in Virginia.

Granted, both NY and LA teem with other special interests, such as financial services businesses, without the very most direct connections to the copyright wars. And granted, too, OpenSecrets.org shows that Biden has collected a mere $39,324 from the category of “TV/Movies/Music.”

But here’s the catch. Lawyers in various cities have sent Biden at least $798,462, and the inevitable question arises: How many of them are entertainment lawyers or work for firms that are at least partly in entertainment law? Are the law firms building campaign donations into their billing arrangements and pay structures, and what are the implications from an election-law perspective? No accusations of illegal actions, no proven quid pro quos or other violations of law. But I would still urge the press to investigate to get the full picture. For legal reasons, I won’t name lawyers or law firms, but, yes, based on a quick look, Biden’s contributors do include some attorneys with at least indirect entertainment connections through their firms.

The explanation in most cases, of course, is that law firms are department stores of influence–that their donations buy “access” on a number of issues, not just copyright-related ones. Still, Biden is an interesting example of the continuing need for true campaign reform so that copyright laws and others aren’t so hostile to nonmillionaires. Meanwhile, in trying to puzzle out the origins of anti-Net copyright legislation, reporters should pick up a lesson here. Pay attention to the geographical locations of contributors, law firm affiliations, and legal specialities rather than looking just for “entertainment” donations.

 
0