
Sylvie Forbin, lobbyist for Vivendi, is new head of copyright at WIPO - walterbell
http://keionline.org/node/2614
======
tptacek
I don't know anything about Forbin, but will point out that people said very
similar things about Tom Wheeler at FCC ("he's a cable company lobbyist!"),
and that analysis turned out to be pretty facile.

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:tzs%20wheeler&sort=byDa...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=author:tzs%20wheeler&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false)

~~~
justratsinacoat
I'm not sure Wheeler's turncoat, pro-consumer behaviour was predictable (or,
for that matter, predicted) by anyone, you or otherwise. I think it's both
more likely and more rational to assume duckness if walking and talking are
both ducklike. Put another way, this sure looks like a Bad Thing, and until a
Wheeler-like situation arises and transforms it into a Good Thing, I don't
think the HN hoi polloi can be blamed for reacting to the Bad Thing.

~~~
dsharlet
When Wheeler was nominated, he had a blog on the topic of telecom public
policy, going back several years, with a lot of very deep and nuanced
commentary on issues like the natural monopoly that arises in telecom
infrastructure. I read a lot of it. It was obvious that he was not a last
minute "turncoat". Wheeler's behavior was very predictable, if people only
read primary sources instead of letting themselves get led around by the nose
by clickbait/outrage farms.

~~~
justratsinacoat
Consider me having been led around by the nose by clickbait/outrage farms. I
wish you'd been around to provide the link to Wheeler's blog when this was
news. If you follow the other subthread, you'll find another HN user who's
provided a link to his commentary when all this was going down, and if the HN
of that time didn't have access to Wheeler's blog's information (do you have a
link, btw?), I feel I'm in pretty reasonably poorly-informed company.

This outlines a particularly pernicious problem with redditalikes as platforms
for news and commentary -- if the parent is telling the truth about Wheeler's
public musings about how he couldn't abide by the monopolistic behaviours of
American telcos, how and why did reddit/HN/etc not jump on it and shout it
loudly from the commentthreads, riding the (perhaps more reddit-y) trope of
the top comment being a stringent correction of the incorrect info in the
actual submission? The only thing redditalike media platforms like more than
being right is being able to correct someone, after all...

~~~
dsharlet
Amusingly, it seems that he allowed his blog's domain/hosting to lapse. You
can find some of it on archive.org:
[http://web.archive.org/web/20110206171653/http://www.mobilem...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110206171653/http://www.mobilemusings.net/2010_12_01_archive.html)
I've only been able to access a subset of the posts, and I can't find the
particular post that really convinced me that he wasn't the example of
lobbyist/regulator revolving door that everyone was saying he was.

I wasn't on HN at the time. However, I did post links to his blog on reddit in
the relevant threads, my posts linking to his blog just didn't get much
traction. They got mildly upvoted and started a few small conversations, but
absolutely _nothing_ compared to the witty one-liners and ranting about
lobbyists, shills, and Obama being a sellout.

~~~
justratsinacoat
I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but showing me that the blog you're
describing exists yet somehow doesn't have the thing you're trying to show me
doesn't really fill me with surety.

The post itself is hardly a smoking gun, either. It's hard to tell whether a
soft-SIM, as described in the 2010 blogpost, would be pro-consumer or pro-Big
Whatever. In the post, Mr Wheeler characterizes it as "handset subsidy vs
consumers' ability to switch cell providers at will". Is that the part that's
supposed to dramatically reveal that he was on our side all along? My
understanding of current 'soft-SIM' deployment is that it's basically only
present in newer iPads and isn't really a soft-SIM.

Sorry, but I still see no proof that Wheeler was 'obviously' pro-consumer. For
all that we love to bash reddit et al, I still think that if there was obvious
proof that the pro-hivemind opinion was wrong, someone would post it and
contrarians would get it to the top post. I presume you deleted the reddit
account in question?

~~~
dsharlet
I read a bunch of the posts that _are_ still accessible, I still think it
makes the point: it's not surprising that Wheeler is reasonably pro-consumer.
It's just that I can't find the _particular_ post that has stuck in my head
all this time.

~~~
justratsinacoat
I'm shocked that Wheeler's pro-consumer leanings are _so obvious_ to everyone
but me. I wonder if we're reading the same archived blog?

~~~
dsharlet
Would you still say this:

> I'm not sure Wheeler's turncoat, pro-consumer behaviour was predictable (or,
> for that matter, predicted) by anyone, you or otherwise.

After reading this[1], written by Wheeler?

> Back in the original analog-to-digital days I can remember AT&T’s
> representatives warning of catastrophic job losses and damage to the
> national security if innovative competitors were allowed into their
> business. The same echoes surround the proposed NASA changes. Many of the
> Old Guard, launch system contractors, and their congressional supporters are
> bemoaning the thought of a competitive manned launch environment. We’ve
> heard all that before at the time of another “analog-to-digital” conversion.
> The earlier warnings not only failed to materialize, but just the opposite
> occurred as new, innovative and less expensive services came forward and
> economic growth and a new generation of jobs exploded.

Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a
regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality?

Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy
on long-winded metaphors...) but I also definitely do not think that the
vitriol directed at him starting the day of his nomination was warranted, and
I do not think that Wheeler's behavior was so unpredictable.

1\.
[http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilem...](http://web.archive.org/web/20110206170617/http://www.mobilemusings.net/2010_05_01_archive.html)

~~~
justratsinacoat
Uh, yeah, totally! Note the language used in your excerpt -- it's all finance
and macro-scale consequences, job loss and less expensive services and
economic growth. He talks about NASA trying to import "Internet age" thinking
(by which he means, of course, entrepreneurship and disruption) into an analog
world. Read some of the other posts and they're awash with the same language.

>Is it really that surprising that someone who wrote that turned out to be a
regulator with reasonable positions on things like net neutrality?

No, not at all! The position I've been trying to take throughout this thread
is that the _perception_ of Wheeler being an ascended lobbyist (read: hostile
to consumer interests) was reasonable, in the absence of mainstream knowledge
otherwise (like eg this blog we're discussing). After reading the post from
which you've excerpted, I still think that perception holds. He's not pro-
consumer, he's pro-capitalist. Just because the view espoused here
("established corps should not have the ability to extinguish potential
competition, via regulation or fearmongering or citing national security")
happens to _benefit_ consumers does not mean he's taking those actions for
consumer benefit.

>Maybe "obvious" was a bit strong of a word (Wheeler's writing is a bit heavy
on long-winded metaphors...)

Really? I think I've established myself as a fellow sentient, but whatever,
_maan_.

------
everyone
I dont really know anything about WIPO. Its this surprising? Or is
announcement similar to 'Darth vader appointed as new head of the Empire' ?

~~~
elsewhen
i think its more like north korea heading the UN commission on human rights.

~~~
chrisbennet
Saudi Arabia is chairing the United commission on human rights currently.
Pretty crazy eh?

~~~
steve-howard
It's the human rights council now, but you're right. Didn't think the UN was a
particularly effective body at any rate, but that's ridiculous.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council#Saudi_Arabia)

~~~
forgotpwtomain
> Didn't think the UN was a particularly effective body at any rate, but
> that's ridiculous.

I'm not sure ridiculous is strong enough here..

------
tafurnace
Positions of power attract the power hungry. Positions of authority attract
authoritarians. I think any sane citizen of any country would love to have
top-level government positions such as these have decisions relegated directly
to the citizens instead. There is no reason why, with our technology now, we
couldnt facilitate direct-democracy for such critical positions that control
the outcome of decisions that affect society.

~~~
dclowd9901
I used to think this, but how do you actually get fair and accurate
representation of people? The digital divide is still real. We don't need any
more hindrances keeping the poor and disadvantaged from participating in the
system.

------
azeirah
For anybody interested in a comprehensive overview of copyright in the
internet age, I can highly recommend the book "Information doesn't want to be
free"

------
sneak
What could possibly go wrong?

