Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Craig White wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 00:25 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:34 PM, Craig White wrote:
>>
>>> 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...
>>
>> Who is this author you are talking about?
> ----
> 'This author' is Marc Fisher, and what he specifically authored was  
> the
> article in the Washington Post that caused the firestorm. Please pay
> attention.
>
> Now that you have completely sidetracked the thread, I will remind you
> of how we got here. You claimed that the author didn't mean to make  
> that
> specific point and I gave you the direct reference in the authors  
> words,
> he made it clear that it was precisely the point he intended to make.
>
> again, I will give you the link to this...
>
> http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/12/record_industry_to_consumers_e.html


That was not the link and I left the original link in the post so that  
you  can simply look up and confirm that it is not the link.
[snip]

> ----
> so much for your ad hominem defense...the very nature of the above
> presumes that I wish some harm to come to you. It's as if you have
> absorbed nothing that I have been saying and merely want harm to fall
> upon you because we have differing opinions.

You publicly accused me of being a shill for the RIAA, twice. Of  
course I think you wish me harm. You are doing me harm by attacking my  
reputation. Apparently your ill will does  stem from the simple fact  
that we disagree but I can't really know your motives.
>
>
> You probably need to familiarize yourself with Niemöller - just  
> because
> it isn't the file sharing protocols that you are presently using isn't
> the current target of the RIAA doesn't mean that tomorrow, you won't  
> be
> gracing their crosshairs tomorrow.

I keep saying that the particular file sharing protocol doesn't  
matter. The fact that the file server is only accessible within my  
household is  what matters. I don't understand why you keep going on  
about protocols.

--
No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back.
  -Turkish proverb