Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 17:47 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > But that's not the point I'm making in the column. What's new in the
> > Howell case is the decision by lawyers for the recording industry to
> > argue that even a legally-obtained CD may not be transferred to an MP3
> > file on your computer. That argument can be found here, on page 15:
> >
> > http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief
> 
> No it can't. There is simply nothing on page 15 that is remotely like  
> that. Are you perhaps reading "unauthorized" as synonymous with  
> "illegal"? Perhaps you are reading "and" as synonymous with "or"?
----
that was the authors own words and the authors description of his intent
for his story (actually, now just a partial since you have removed some
of the context).

The reason that I included the amplification by the author was because
it so completely spoke to your statement about why the author was
wrong...

> > wrong? how?
> 
> By saying that the RIAA was suing Howell for merely ripping files
> for  
> his personal use.

There's no question that the predicate changed from plaintiff's original
motion for summary judgment and the controversial plaintiff's second
motion for summary judgment. The change should be simple enough for you
to understand...that the legitimate copies of these music files
automatically became unauthorized copies merely by the presence of file
sharing software. The plaintiff does not even allege that any
downloading of those files occurred.

The nexus is obvious, I'm disappointed you don't see it. Computers are
replete with file sharing software. When the RIAA shifts their focus
from kazaa to SMB/NFS/etc., are you finally going to see the light?

Craig