![[self-portrait]](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_aph-FWKPAtw/Sb7dbBwgg0I/AAAAAAAAAAU/xefH94KcXQA/S220/LawShark5204a.jpg)
Scrivener's Error| null | |
|---|---|
|
Scrivener's Error |
Law and reality in publishing (seldom the same thing) from the author's side of the slush pile, with occasional forays into military affairs, censorship and the First Amendment, legal theory, and anything else that strikes me as interesting. |
link to: 12:28 [GMT-6]
Financial fraud shock horror: Financial regulatory authorities have been captured. First, a little vocabulary: In administrative law, "agency capture" refers to agencies that are essentially captives of the industries/businesses that they are supposed to regulate. Back in the early 1990s, as a research assistant, I introduced some unexamined data sets and statistical rigor into a professor's work on structural racism in mortgage lending.1 I then began litigating those very issues. So, two decades later, imagine my nonsurprise at revelations that the Fed isn't regulating the (highly profitable) industry segments most in need of regulation.
The application of this principle to antitrust regulation — and, in particular, to monopsony regulation — since early in the Reagan administration is left as an exercise for the student. Or the merely cynical. Whether that has any lessons for the steadily consolidating consumer finance "industry", the entertainment and publishing industry, and/or American Needle shouldn't really require any additional though.
The real problem with/impetus for agency capture, though, comes from the legal profession's refusal to acknowledge its internal specializations. Bluntly, the only place the profession's structure provides to develop the expertise necessary to regulate an industry is through working within that industry. Going "career government" simply isn't an option anymore; hiring practices, political accountability and acceptability, and the huge disparity in workload, working conditions, and compensation make the true career regulator an exception... and drive the exceptional ones into the arms of the industry. This is even more of a problem with lawyers than with financiers because lawyers are required — by both common sense and by the supposed ethics rules — to look at and consider all aspects of a question before making/recommending action (or, too often, inaction). The lawyers in the trenches continue to do so; they're the ones who can't get promoted to being decisionmakers any more.
Finally, there's also agency self-interest to consider. I'm afraid that one of the best examples of this is the Copyright Office, which would be substantially smaller, less expensive, and less powerful if the US would join the rest of the world and abandon the registration requirement for copyright. Some argue that registration serves a useful purpose akin to title registration for motor vehicles and real property: It shows who the owner is. However, that comparison falls apart very quickly when one notes that changing owners for motor vehicles and real property requires an entry in the register... while doing so for copyrights does not. Too, the optional basis of registration under the US's idiosyncratic interpretation of the Berne Convention (which, essentially, denies that registration is a "formality" necessary to "enjoy" copyright because it isn't required... but that one can't get into court without it; it seems to me that the ability to get a court to enforce a copyright is a critical, implicit part of "enjoying" that copyright) also eliminates this as a cause. That, then, leaves the acquisition of works for the Library of Congress... which is what happens to deposits in the best case.
And why does all of this matter to authors? Why indeed; more to come, when some news I expect to break in the next ten days or so does, in fact, break.
Labels: arts, copyright, intellectual property, jurisprudence, politics
Ritual disclaimer: This blog contains legal commentary, but it is only general commentary. It does not constitute legal advice for your situation. It does not create an attorney-client relationship or any other expectation of confidentiality, nor is it an offer of representation.
All material © 2003–12 except where otherwise indicated. All rights reserved. This blawg does not use the Creative Commons License, although I'm usually pretty good-natured about permissions for attributed reuse.
I approve of no advertising appearing on or through syndication for anything other than the syndication itself; any such advertising violates the limited reuse license implied by voluntarily including syndication code on this blawg, and I do not approve aggregators and syndicators whose page design reflects only an intent to use the reference(s) to this blawg without actually providing the content from this blawg.
Sausages?
Internet link sausages, as frequently appear here, are gathered from uninspected meaty internet products and byproducts via processes you really, really don't want to observe; spiced with my own secret, snarky, sarcastic blend; quite possibly extended with sawdust or other indigestibles; and stuffed into your monitor (instead of either real or artificial casings). They're sort of like "link salad" or "pot pourri" or "miscellaneous musings" (or, for that matter, "making law"), but far more disturbing.
I am not responsible for any changes to your lipid counts or blood pressure from consuming these sausages... nor for your monitor if you insist on covering them with mash or sauce.
| Archives |
|---|
Warped Weft
Now live at the new site. I have arranged some of
the more infamous threads that have appeared here
by unravelling them from the blawg tapestry (and hopefully eliminating some
of the sillier typos). Sometimes, the threads have been slightly reordered for clarity.
Links of Interest
Links open in a new window.
Other Blawgs, Blogs, and Journals
These may be of interest; I do not necessarily agree with opinions expressed in them, although the reasoning and writing are almost always first-rate (and represent a standard seldom, if ever, achieved in "mainstream" journalism). I'm picky, and have eclectic tastes, so don't expect a comprehensive listing.
A blawg is sort of like a blog on legal issues, but usually has a lot more links to outside resources (other than other blogs) than does a typical blog. Scrivener's Error is a blawg, not just a blog. You can find other blawgs at < ? law blogs # >.
Optimized for
at 1024x768.
