Today marks the end of an era as Dan Glickman, a former secretary of agriculture and congressman from Kansas, takes the MPAA's reins from famed lobbyist Jack Valenti, who had held the position since 1966. On the eve of his ascension to one of Washington's most glamorous jobs, Glickman spoke with The Hollywood Reporter's national correspondent Brooks Boliek about his plans.

The Hollywood Reporter: You officially start (today), but you already have taken meetings in Los Angeles.
Dan Glickman: Yes, I've been out there twice. Jack and I had an all-employees meeting. I've been spending a lot of time with the anti-piracy team and (MPAA anti-piracy chief) John Malcolm, the general counsel's office and the chief financial officer (Mark Howe). I'd say 70% of the employees are in that office, and that's really where the interfaces with the studios is. I also had some meetings with industry people -- some I had not seen before -- and I met with (Alliance of Motion Picture & Television Producers president) Nick Counter. I want to meet with all the guilds; I started with (DGA executive director) Jay Roth because we have a very close mutual friend. I just did as much as I could during this interregnum period.

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.

THR: What does your experience bring to this job as the motion picture studios' ambassador to the world?
Glickman: I ran for Congress 10 times -- won nine times and lost once -- so I've got some experience with the legislative process. The heart of this job is interfacing with government, particularly the U.S. Congress, the administration and foreign governments. For six years, I was secretary of a Cabinet-level department that has about 100,000 employees and a $70 billion budget. Granted, soybeans are not movies, but there are a lot of parallels in the international world of trade and market opening; this (too) is a big business. The Motion Picture Assn. has 250 employees and tens of millions of dollars, so I think my experience at (the U.S. Department of Agriculture), running a large institution, had something to do with (being tapped). My history is not in agriculture: My dad was in the scrap-iron business and owned a AAA baseball team. I developed a subset of skills in the agriculture industry, but I think the prime reason I got the USDA job was my people skills. I hope that's the strength that will make me effective at MPAA.

THR: The MPAA has enjoyed success in getting strong intellectual property protections and DMCA-esque language included in trade agreements. The recently signed U.S.-Australia Free Trade Agreement comes to mind.
Glickman: The Australia FTA was a great victory for the industry, and the MPAA spent a great deal of resources on it -- as did the member companies -- to get that done. We have a big challenge in getting our friends in both the developed and developing world to respect copyrights and reduce and eliminate piracy and permit market access. Some of those things can be dealt with in new trade agreements.

THR: How do you do that?
Glickman: One of my goals is to use my background and experience in dealing with international trade issues, particularly as I was involved in the agricultural arena, to further the market-opening free-trade discussions. I did a fair amount of this with respect to another part of our international trade agenda. There are some parallels between that and what we have here: Agriculture and the creative rights of the movie and music industry are the great export assets in this country, and they share the distinction of being two of the few things the United States has a great balance of payments surplus on. I expect to be fully engaged with the (U.S. Trade Representative) and our government generally in market-access agreements and other trade agreements. On all these things, Jack opened the door -- I mean, thank God I had a good mentor who built credibility. The one thing the MPAA's got internationally is enormous credibility, largely due to Jack Valenti -- and that's something I want to build on.

THR: There seems a big difference between what is going on in the Senate with the Induce Act and what is going on in the House with the Digital Media Consumers' Rights Act, which would weaken the Digital Millennium Copyright Act significantly. Those bills seem diametrically opposed.
Glickman: (The DMCRA) expands the definition of fair use, and it goes way beyond what we think is necessary to protect fair use. It's one that I've obviously been engaged in discussions about while I've been here, (and) it's one we'll continue to be very active on.

THR: The DMCA was passed in 1998 -- along with the Sony Bono Copyright Term Extension bill -- but an apparent shift has occurred since then, at least in the House. The DMCRA, sponsored by Rick Boucher, D-Va., enjoys broad support within the Commerce Committee, and Chairman Joe Barton, R-Texas, has made it clear that he wants to roll back the DMCA and that he likes that bill.
Glickman: Obviously there's some support for the Boucher bill -- and I think it needs to be fought vigilantly -- but my judgment is that there's no imminent threat of passage. It's going to require vigilance on (the part of) folks like the MPAA, the (Recording Industry Association of America) and others. The battles have heated up even more in the last couple of years on this. Rick is actually an old friend of mine; we served together on the Judiciary Committee. I have to go in and teach him a few things when I get a chance. (Laughs)

THR: You have expressed a belief that the main threat to the industry is piracy. How do you see the MPAA acting on that issue going forward?
Glickman: First of all, this is a threat not only to the movie industry but also to the creative industries generally -- and to the producers of any product, whether it's real property or intellectual property. Copying is an international plague; it's pure, downright theft. The question is: How do you deal with this in the modern, changing world? It's a multifaceted strategy. Specifically as it relates to the movie industry, it has to be a combination of aggressive law enforcement by state and federal authorities, use of litigation, civil litigation (and) education. I spent two years in a university at Harvard, and I would hope to use those talents in part of the (public relations) and educational strategy to further the work that has already been done on college campuses. (Also important is) being open to new technology, exploring with the people who create new technologies how one permits those technologies to flow and develop but at the same time respects the creator's rights. That's not an easy issue because of the rapidity of technological change -- (but) just because technology is changing rapidly should not mean we don't stop and protect the creator's rights. I really do believe that if those creative rights are not protected, then down the road, nothing creative will be produced -- in the intellectual sense, the creative sense and in the hard-goods sense.

THR: Your son Jonathan is a partner in Spyglass Entertainment and your wife Rhoda was staff director at the Congressional Arts Caucus, so you have Hollywood ties. How often do you go to the movies?
Glickman: My wife and I see 50-100 movies a year. Movies are the great, profound cultural and entertainment foundation for most Americans, (and) they are the face of America around the world. You go to the most undeveloped countries in the world -- even where anti-Americanism is high -- and you talk to almost anybody, and they will ask you about sports and entertainment. That's the face of America, (and) the movie industry is the biggest part of that face. This job helps me to facilitate that and advance American interests in the world -- both economic interests, which are key to the industry, but also our political interests. (That's) what Joe Nye, the former dean of (Harvard's) Kennedy School (of Government), called "soft power." There's hard power, which is weapons systems, and there's soft power, which is cultural -- and I get to lead an association which is as responsible for the promotion of our culture as any in the country.

THR: There was a recent congressional hearing about smoking in the movies. That is an issue you probably will have to address.
Glickman: There are movies out there that I would not go see myself -- nor would I take family members -- but I believe free expression is critical to this industry and critical for the political stability of America. One of the things we have to do is maintain a dialogue with members of Congress and the American family community about these issues. One of my closest friends in Congress is Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kansas). He and Sen. (Joseph) Lieberman (D-Conn.) have issues from time to time with the industry. I told Sam I disagree with him on a lot of these things, but I'm willing to keep an open door with them. Frankly, that will be the key to my success: making people believe I have two ears and one mouth, because I need to listen twice as much as I talk. That will help resolve and deal with these issues. We need to bring folks in the Hollywood community together with the folks in Washington so we can have a dialogue about these issues. There is no call right now for censorship in America, thank God.