Tom Perrelli and Intellectual Property
Thomas Perelli is going to be the next Associate Attorney General of the United States. So let’s note three things about that:
- I don’t really know what the AAG’s job is.
- I don’t know anything about Perrelli’s stint as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General.
- It’s very difficult to infer a lawyer’s beliefs based on work he did representing clients other than the general observation that there’s a reason lawyers in general are held in low regard by the public.
But I was interested in the fact that in his private sector capacity at Jenner & Block, Perrelli is co-chair of the Entertainment and New Media Practice. Initially, I hoped that meant he was maybe doing interesting work representing device manufacturers whose capacity to innovate is being stifled by unduly restrictive DMCA provisions. Or maybe he represented some cutting-edge artists whose work is being blocked by big content owners. But no:
Mr. Perrelli regularly represents the recording industry in cutting-edge intellectual property, technology, and anti-piracy litigation. He has represented the recording industry in a host of cases arising under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), as well as in copyright infringement and digital piracy litigation. He has also represented the record industry and recording artists in a series of copyright royalty proceedings before the Copyright Royalty Board.
The good news is that since the recording industry has decided to adopt an overwhelmingly litigation-based approach to coping with technological change, rather than trying to be innovative in terms of their products or business practices, they probably put a lot of effort in making sure they’re hiring very good lawyers.
30 Responses to “Tom Perrelli and Intellectual Property”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
January 5th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
If you look at the DOJ nominees’ bios, what they nearly all have in common is (a) Harvard JD, and (b)Clinton-administration DOJ experience. The one exception is the one from Indiana, who has a Yale JD.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:12 pm
If you look at the DOJ nominees’ bios, what they nearly all have in common is (a) Harvard JD, and (b)Clinton-administration DOJ experience.
It’s pretty sad to see yet another president being forced to staff his Justice Department with graduates from a second-tier law school. First Regent University, now this?
January 5th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
It’s very difficult to infer a lawyer’s beliefs based on work he did representing clients other than the general observation that there’s a reason lawyers in general are held in low regard by the public.
This makes no sense.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
“other than the general observation that there’s a reason lawyers in general are held in low regard by the public.”
You want to print something - criticism of Bush, e.g. - on the Internet and not get shut down, pulled into court, or thrown into jail? thank a lawyer. You like to see minimum wage laws, OSHA standards, laws ensuring the right to (fill in the blank) are followed? thank a lawyer. I could add more, but I think you get my point. Maybe you would prefer pistols at sunrise.
January 5th, 2009 at 2:33 pm
Can’t you just smell the self-hatred coming from MY. The fact is that you were able to attend Harvard because your daddy made $$ from copyrights. You were able to work as a blogger because you had daddys $$ from copyrights backstopping you. Self-hatred anyone?
January 5th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
It is well within the realm of possibility to be a lawyer representing Big Media who disagrees with the current copyright scheme. I wasn’t one of them, but several of my colleagues were.
January 5th, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Since Matt’s father’s copyrights have nothing to do with the copyright grabs by the music and motion picture industries, I don’t see any self-hatred. Being opposed to insane extensions of copyright law is not at all the same as being opposed to copyright. (Hell, even if Matt were proposing abolition of copyright, I don’t see how that would be self-hatred.)
January 5th, 2009 at 4:24 pm
For an alternate take:
http://copyrightsandcampaigns.blogspot.com/2009/01/copyleft-not-thrilled-about-obamas.html
January 5th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
Matt can be understood, if not forgiven, because he’s still deluded into thinking that Obama is some sort of liberal god who will save America from conservatism.
So every time Obama disproves that notion, Matt is afflicted with cognitive dissonance.
January 5th, 2009 at 8:18 pm
I’d like to echo Cliffy’s sentiments. The fact that he represented the RIAA doesn’t provide sufficient ground to impute their legal positions into his policy positions.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:21 pm
I can understand that if you take on a case or two representing a client whose interests you don’t necessarily support objectively that its unfair to impute their policy positions with yours. I think taking these cases is justified because the reality of most legal practice is that you sometimes must take on clients whose causes you would never otherwise try to advance — firms want to make money and if you refuse to work the cases on political grounds your career at a firm is shot. But you do have some degree of control over where you develop your areas of expertise and regular practice areas. If you spend the greater part of your career defending any particular industry I think its totally fair to create a presumption of sympathy with its interests. Either that, or the presumption that you are greedy or nihilistic enough to not care about the broader results of your advocacy. I think Matt is exactly right that there are reasons people have a distaste for the profession, and the annoying insistence by lawyers that they deserve some kind of special exemption from the rule that you are responsible for the outcomes you help produce is one of those reasons.
January 5th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
“I think Matt is exactly right that there are reasons people have a distaste for the profession, and the annoying insistence by lawyers that they deserve some kind of special exemption from the rule that you are responsible for the outcomes you help produce is one of those reasons.”
I’d agree with their insistence for this if they were merely talking about representing defendants. Defendants in litigation deserve some sort of representation, even the most heinous, so we can’t peg lawyers with that. On the other hand, if the RIAA comes to you and wants to hire you to do something you don’t agree with, then I’d call that greedy and nihilistic.
January 5th, 2009 at 11:52 pm
This is a good pick. The Tom Perelli I remember from high school was a baseball fan, a brilliant student- funny, kind, and wise. This will mean a mensch in the Justice Department.
I’m not a fan of ever expanding copyrights either, but private practice means clients other than the general public. So be it.
January 7th, 2009 at 5:32 am
I hope there really is good news in this. So far I can’t see it.
January 7th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
I’m surprised you didn’t include the interview from where you jacked the picture. It was more telling than the “evidence” you looked at in your post.
http://www.bisnow.com/archives_lfw/index_jennerbloch.html
So basically, he decided to litigate for the RIAA because he figured there was money in it. Which… pretty much supports the “lawyers are scum” moral evaluation.
January 7th, 2009 at 4:44 pm
If you are interested in certain areas of law (I’m thinking of labor and environmental as well as IP), and if you want to pay off your loans and put your spouse and kid in the right school district, you will be working for a firm that works for large clients. Even if you’re not naturally inclined to agree with big business on these issues.
I’m not sure what happens to your views along the way (it’s why I ended up avoiding these areas), but I would imagine that they become fairly nuanced. After all, you’re spending a lot more time than most people thinking about these issues. I think Perrelli’s experience raises questions about his biases, but I don’t think his experience answers them.
As a response to frez, are there any other service industry sectors where profit seeking makes you scum, or is that a special rule for lawyers?
March 11th, 2009 at 4:44 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:32 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:26 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:28 am
I want to say - thank you for this!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:18 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:30 am
buy viagra online
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 am
Great site. Good info
buy cheap viagra
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:15 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
cheap brand pfizer viagra
April 9th, 2009 at 6:22 am
I bookmarked this site, Thank you for good job! viagra