Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
from the guilt-by-arrogance? dept
I'm planning to do some more thorough coverage of many of the comments that were submitted to the IP Enforcement Coordinator for next year's "Joint Strategic Plan." I just need to find an open block of time to go through a bunch of them. However, the folks over at TorrentFreak have highlighted one of the more ridiculous claims made in the combined filing from the RIAA & MPAA -- suggesting that people like Kim Dotcom 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.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: arrogant, cary sherman, copyright, entertainment industry, kim dotcom, rich
Companies: mpaa, riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
this guy seemed to find it pretty epic.
http://www.dailydot.com/news/kim-dotcom-twitter-pool-party/
Dotcom was having his usual Sunday rendezvous, driving around his estate in motorbikes and swimming, when a puzzled Twitter user, Ben Gracewood, asked Dotcom if he spends all day driving around and posing for pictures. �I could live like that,� Gracewood joked.
Dotcom replied, �Come over now!�
Gracewood, along with two others, lived �like that� for a few hours, at least. They went over to Dotcom�s house and tweeted for a few hours.
To prove that this bizarre experience was actually happening, Dotcom posted photos and live-tweeted the event with the hashtag #swimatkims. He tweeted the pool party was �fun� and hinted that he might hold another one in the future. (We posted a Storify created by a New Zealand magazine of the event below.)
�#swimatkims will return for everybody. Need a big public pool. Awesome DJ. Sound & lights. Who�s in?,� tweeted Dotcom. Gracewood created a website and posted on his blog about his ordeal.
�It was a mix of completely surreal and utterly mundane,� Gracewood wrote .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That said, I do love epic pools parties, and I have no doubt that I would enjoy one of Dotcom's. That's a different thing, though. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
Is being rich, arrogant, drug addict, making flashy parties with a wealth of whores and running a mafia organized crime style business against the Law?
Makes us wonder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
Agreed. The MPAA/RIAA's of the world must be stopped.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
what a total piracy apologist. wow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ad%20hominem
Now I agree that Mike's comments seem to be stressing the hypocrisy of the MPAA, much like А у вас негров линчуют.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/And_you_are_lynchin g_Negroes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Damn didn't notice I wasn't logged when I posted that. Cheers ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
People who live in grass houses should not stow thrones.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doc: You know what they say: People in glass houses sink sh-sh-ships.
Rocco: Doc, I gotta buy you, like, a proverb book or something. This mix'n'match shit's gotta go.
Doc: What?
Connor: A penny saved is worth two in the bush, isn't it?
Murphy: And don't cross the road if you can't get out of the kitchen.
-Boondock Saints :D
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is Being Rich And Arrogant Against The Law? The RIAA & MPAA Seem To Think So
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and also dont forget that they influenced greatly (if not actually own) the majority of politicians in the majority of countries, or manage to entice or encourage them to do what they are told in order to try to keep these industries afloat and the execs in the manner to which they have become accustomed over the last however many decades!
add to that the way they are allowed to lie, cheat and deceive to get 'evidence' all of which is able to be used against whomsoever they decide but almost all that is presented in the defense of those accused is thrown out or at least twisted beyond useable belief!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Here's an idea though... If the industries want to lock up people for violating copyright law...
Why don't we start with them?
False claims of copyright?
Massive destruction of culture?
Affecting trade policies?
Effective monopolies?
Bribery?
Extortion?
What haven't we seen from these trade industries that indicate old fashioned mercantilism similar to what the Founding Fathers were fighting against when they created the Boston Tea Party?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is permanently set to 11, completely removes the emotion of shame and has an added "victimized" response function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's why Dotcom must win this, he has access to more resources than STC so there are more chances of wining. Despite whatever we may think of Dotcom, if he's innocent and the MAFIAA (via their US lapdogs) are twisting the law and doing all sorts of illegal things to bring him down then we MUST support Dotcom. Justice must be delivered in a fair manner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I feel sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
3.2 million
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3.2 million
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: 3.2 million
I've long been fascinated by perception of wealth. I've known many people all across the income spectrum. Wealthy people who below the 1% or so mark very rarely think they are wealthy. I've always found that to be incredibly weird. Even weirder, there is a middle-class income range in which people are likely to wrongly consider themselves "wealthy".
Poor people, however, know they're poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 3.2 million
It's all relative.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: 3.2 million
Most poor people in the US are what used to be called "upper-lower" or "middle-lower" class. These people are relatively poor by US standards, but average or moderately wealthy by the standards of the poorest parts of the world.
However, the US also has many really, truly poor people by any standard.
Also, even judging just by US standards, there are quite a lot of middle-class people who consider themselves poor but who are not anything of the sort. USians have a strong tendency to overestimate how wealthy the average USian is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's simple, really...
They know what kind of persons they are, and how they got to be wealthy and influential. So, naturally, they assume that Dotcom is as big a bastard as they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mote's and beams?
Pots and Kettles?
How about motes and beams?
From Matthew's Gospel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Mote's and beams?
If you measure a man by how faithful to his wife he is, then it will be seen as fair game to judge you for all the times you snuck around with the office lady behind your own wife's back.
It's not that hard a concept to grasp. You'd think people would learn this without the need to have it written down.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And here is your first mistake...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fbi notices
and (I'm told) the pirated movies don't have them.
I think the RIAA and MPAA should demand these notices be on every version of the movie.
including in the theaters. :-S
and peope in theaters, after watching previews, should have to sit through a minute or two of nothing but FBI/ICE notice on the big screen, so they all remember.
see the feedback from that. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fbi notices
Somehow I doubt adding more of them will help matter.
Also, I hear some of those movie rips still have the notices.
Don't care enough about the crap the industry produces to find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: fbi notices
Zero reduction in piracy and a bunch of consumers pissed off that they're being lectured not to pirate on everything stuff they've paid for (therefore having another good reason not to bother next time)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tags
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They do seem to think a lot of things that conflict with the preferences of those that choose (or not) to keep them aloft.
Law or no law - I perceive their actions as long going and ongoing infractions against people. All people.
The world where these guys now find themselves playing in grows a little bit closer, as a people, every day. The governments notwithstanding.
Let them try to make their rules - but, henceforth, now is as easy as it's going to be for rule making and business plan raking. Yours is broken, you can only keep breaking other plans for so long until you're totally and completely recognized for the whores you so blatantly seem to be.
"The Media" is The King. Ergo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They do seem to think a lot of things that conflict with the preferences of those that choose (or not) to keep them aloft.
Law or no law - I perceive their actions as long going and ongoing infractions against people. All people.
The world where these guys now find themselves playing in grows a little bit closer, as a people, every day. The governments notwithstanding.
Let them try to make their rules - but, henceforth, now is as easy as it's going to be for rule making and business plan raking. Yours is broken, you can only keep breaking other plans for so long until you're totally and completely recognized for the whores you so blatantly seem to be.
"The Media" is The King. Ergo...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Irony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nice try, but wow, what a failure of a story. More slant than a Romney campaign speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Great post
How about forcing them to make royalty payments to muscians more transparent (as if that shouldn't be a basic right) or to actually pay out all royalties collected, or to pay musician's the money collected from John Doe settlements?
How about filing cases for bribery ("we paid for that trade bill")? I still don't understand how they have escaped RICO. Maybe it is time to break up "too big to fail" corporations / trade organizations.
Maybe they should give the public a choice and not obscure whether a label is RIAA-associated or not. They know the public is against them.
They (RIAA and MPAA) make Dotcom seem innocent in comparison, not the reverse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]