Techdirt. Stories filed under "rich" Easily digestible tech news... http://www.techdirt.com/ en-us Techdirt. Stories filed under "rich"http://www.techdirt.com/images/td-88x31.gifhttp://www.techdirt.com/ Wed, 15 Aug 2012 10:56:55 PDT Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So Mike Masnick http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/17392820054/is-being-rich-arrogant-against-law-riaa-mpaa-seem-to-think-so.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120814/17392820054/is-being-rich-arrogant-against-law-riaa-mpaa-seem-to-think-so.shtml are guilty of breaking the law because they're rich, arrogant and are trying to influence public opinion:
In this case, the Justice Department and other federal agencies are now grappling with a set of wealthy and arrogant defendants who are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to sway public opinion against efforts to hold them accountable...
This reminds me of the debate I had with Jonathan Taplin, in which he referred to Kim Dotcom's (rented) yacht, and asked where were the musicians' yachts. Thing is, if I wanted to, I could easily find evidence of various rock stars with yachts. I could easily point to evidence of record label and movie studio execs with yachts, or who are phenomenally wealthy. Hell, I could just point you to the fact that the RIAA's boss, Cary Sherman made $3.2 million in salary in 2009 -- a number that I imagine is more than what nearly every single person reading this site makes in a year (or, in their lifetimes). Being wealthy is certainly no sign of guilt. And he got this amount even as he's leading the RIAA through it's clear decline in relevance phase, where he's still fighting the wrong war.

Similarly, it's not hard to find examples of massive arrogance on the part of these execs -- from the RIAA and MPAA putting down the public (repeatedly) or ignoring valid concerns about SOPA and PIPA, to decades of arrogant efforts to destroy all kinds of innovations they don't like, from radio to cable TV to the VCR to the mp3 player to the DVR.

Finally, these are the guys who run the media, and they're complaining about a few execs trying to influence public opinion? The MPAA's largest members are Universal (who owns NBC), Disney (who owns ABC), Viacom (who owns a bunch of TV stations and spun off CBS). And they're going to complain that some tech folks have an undue influence on public opinion? Really? And, let's not forget that these same groups have also "left no stone unturned" for decades in trying to influence public opinion. "Home taping is killing music." Remember that? You know those "FBI warnings" on every single movie you watch?

I'd say that if we're going to stack up which side of the debate has involved more "wealthy and arrogant" individuals "who are leaving no stone unturned in their efforts to sway public opinion"... it has to start with the RIAA and the MPAA. But, of course, they're allowed to do all of that, because none of it is illegal. But to try to associate such activity with illegality seems to be a stretch way beyond anything reasonable. Is Kim Dotcom loud, arrogant, crass and tacky in his displays of wealth? Absolutely. I doubt he's the kind of person I'd care to spend any amount of time with, personally. But just because his style is so outlandish, it doesn't automatically make him a criminal, as the RIAA and MPAA imply. Similarly, I don't automatically assume that super wealthy, arrogant individuals who work for the entertainment industry are obviously criminals either.

It is really quite obnoxious and demeaning for these large trade agencies to go around smearing people based on superficial items like arrogance and wealth. Kim Dotcom may eventually be found guilty of criminal activity. And, at that point, they're free to publicize that his actions here were criminal. But in the meantime, they're acting like cliquish high school girls, tarring and feathering people because they don't like the way they look or act.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
]]> guilt-by-arrogance? http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120814/17392820054 Thu, 25 Aug 2011 17:00:00 PDT DailyDirt: Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? Michael Ho http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110809/12493615456/dailydirt-who-wants-to-be-millionaire.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110809/12493615456/dailydirt-who-wants-to-be-millionaire.shtml
  • Justin Bieber made $53 million last year, making him the highest paid teenager. Just wait until he starts licensing his hairdo... [url]
  • James Patterson was named the world's highest-paid author by Forbes. A Harvard professor described the experience of hearing Patterson give a talk to MBA students: "It was like listening to a can of Coca-Cola describe how it would like to be marketed." [url]
  • Politifact rates Warren Buffett's statement that the rich have a lower tax rate than the middle class as "true." Warren Buffett has been saying this for a while, but maybe even though he's rich, people will listen to him, but not actually hear what he's saying. [url]
  • To read up on building up your own business, check out some interesting entrepreneurial articles on StumbleUpon. [url]  
    • By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     urls-we-dig-up http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20110809/12493615456     Tue, 14 Sep 2010 15:23:03 PDT Does Open Data Help The Rich Exploit The Poor? Michael Costanza http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/23172310929.shtml http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100907/23172310929.shtml JNomics points us to a Marshall Kirkpatrick post on ReadWriteWeb about "How Open Data is Used Against the Poor," in which Kirkpatrick discusses an article and research about the effects of the digitization of land records in Bangalore. Apparently, as a result of the increased access to the data (for those with computers), middle and upper income people were able to exploit details found in the records as leverage for gaining land ownership from the poor.

    Kirkpatrick and the author of the original article, Mike Gurstein, use this example to make the point that simply opening up data is often not really enough to benefit the broader population, and further, that it can simply promote the widening of the divide between the rich and the poor. Both argue for coupling open data with efforts that insure "effective use" for the most people - i.e., leveling the playing field by essentially controlling access to the data or delaying openness until tools and policies are put in place to insure equal footing for everyone. Kirkpatrick concludes his post with the following warning:
    ... if you want all parts of society to benefit from the opening of public data, then simply opening it up and allowing the most ferociously competitive people in society to grab a hold of it may not be a good way to impact the world positively.
    This seems like a bit of an overstatement. There are always going to be those who are better positioned to take advantage of the opportunities presented by new technologies. An example from history would be the invention of the printing press. Of course the greater availability of books that followed initially provided a much bigger benefit to the educated than to the illiterate. However, not only were more people able to take advantage of cheaper, more abundant, books as literacy rates increased -- the abundance itself helped to drive that increase. Similarly, while this example from Bangalore shows that, initially, the more well connected have been able to take better advantage of the opening up of land record data, it is not difficult to imagine how the less fortunate will also benefit. The opening up of the data has exposed many problems with the records, allowing for the possibility that those issues will be addressed, and more care will be taken to guard against such issues in the future. Also, there will certainly be opportunities for some enterprising people among the poor to take advantage of the newly available data -- opportunities which did not exist at all when the information was effectively hidden. After all, the "ferociously competitive people" didn't actually "grab hold of" the data -- it's still open for access by anyone.

    This case does demonstrate how the growing divide between the digital haves and have-nots is self-perpetuating, and it is certainly worthwhile to pursue efforts to close that gap by promoting education and the development of more widely available, cheaper technology. And efforts should be made to insure that access to open data is not abused by the better off to gain advantage over the poor. But in the end, the open data itself is not the culprit.

    Permalink | Comments | Email This Story
    ]]>     sounds-a-little-alarmist http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100907/23172310929