Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:34 PM, Craig White wrote:
> What I would argue with is that you have re-phrased, recharacterized  
> the
> authors statement which I have quoted to you twice and it's obvious  
> that
> continually re-quoting his statement will not get it through your head
> but specifically...NO WHERE DID THE ARTICLE EVER STATE (these are your
> words from above) "in the teeth of the evidence, that the RIAA was  
> suing
> Howell for merely ripping files regardless of whether he shared them  
> or
> not."
>
> I suppose it's necessary for you to twist the authors words in order  
> to
> prove what he didn't ever say.

I think I'll simply reference this:
<http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html>

>
>
> Now, what I will say...on page 8 of same supplemental motion for  
> summary
> judgment, the plaintiffs have now added..."The act of making  
> copyrighted
> sound recordings available for electronic distribution on a peer-to- 
> peer
> network, without license from the copyright owners, violates the
> copyright owners’ exclusive right of distribution, regardless of  
> whether
> actual distribution has been shown."
>
> Now, what I will say...on page 15 of same supplemental motion for
> summary judgment, the plaintiffs have now added..."Once Defendant
> converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and  
> they
> are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies
> distributed by Plaintiffs."
>
> Now, what I will say...on page 18 of same supplemental motion for
> summary judgment, the plaintiffs have now added..."Defendant’s bald
> assertion that he did not realize these sound recordings were being
> distributed from his KaZaA shared folder to other KaZaA users is both
> belied by the facts and irrelevant under the law."
>
> Simply put, RIAA, through its attorneys is making clear that simply
> because these mp3 files, put by defendant on his hard drive by ripping
> them from his own copies of CD's constitute the basis of his criminal
> action because they were being shared, regardless of any  
> circumstances.

So we agree.
>
>
> Simply put, it seems clear to me that it's that most people who have
> ripped music files have them in a folder that is shared some way, some
> how dependent upon OS and network configuration and whether downloaded
> or not, constitutes a legal infringement/liability.

I simply think you are wrong as a matter of fact unless by "shared in  
some way" you mean shared within their  household. If that's what you  
mean,  then your assertion is irrelevant.
>
> ----
>> You, I , the plaintiff and the defendant all
>> agree that whether the music files were the KaZaA shared folder is a
>> significant issue.
> ----
> No, clearly if you read the above, understood plaintiff's position,  
> you
> would see that plaintiff is suggesting that whether the music files  
> are
> in a KaZaA shared folder is no longer the issue at all. It was  
> however,
> significant in their original motion for summary judgment but the
> amendments claim that this is no longer their burden.
> ----
>> You, I and the defendant but not the plaintiff all
>> agree that if the files were in the shared folder it is  a  
>> significant
>> if they  came  to be there with the  knowledge and consent of the
>> defendant.
> ----
> Not at all, and so says RIAA, likewise see above. At best, RIAA (and  
> by
> extension the court) might consider it a factor to mitigate what will
> obviously be an award for the plaintiff

Did you notice the phrase "but not the plaintiff"?
>
> ----
>> The RIAA says at one point that this is not a significant
>> issue but I think we can agree that they are being dishonest.
> ----
> You are on a roll for suppositions what people think but once again,  
> you
> want to ignore what people say and presuppose what you want to  
> believe.
> I think you fail to recognize that is now their position.

So you think the  RIAA is honest? I have to wonder why you continually  
take their side. ;-)
>

[snip a lot of stuff that seems to minor to bother with]

> You haven't formed an opinion on this? This is only the reason for the
> entire story in the first place.
>

Not at all.

> You were so focused on the issue of whether Howell had KaZaA and music
> files in some shared KaZaA folder that you have missed the story
> completely...the RIAA simply doesn't care and doesn't consider it
> necessary to prove intent, the existence of KaZaA (or any file sharing
> mechanism), only that these files are on your hard disk and that they
> are shared.


I have made it abundantly clear that I know this is the RIAAs stated  
position but  I simply think they are lying.

>>
> ----
> of course they are hypotheticals are always ridiculous until they
> actually happen

Not at all. Reasonable testing requires reasonable hypotheticals.
>
> Lastly, go for the honesty test...if you have a ripped CD and
> accidentally drop the original 'authorized' copy and break it, do you
> delete the mp3/m4a/ogg version from your hard drive? If you have a  
> copy
> of your entire CD collection on your laptop and it gets stolen, must  
> you
> throw away your CD's?

Since it is very explicit in copyright law that if I actually break  
the original I am allowed to use the back-up, or course I don't. It is  
also very  clear that if someone steals my laptop, it is the thief who  
is violating copyright. But yes, if I give away a CD I actually  do  
delete all the ripped  copies. I simply do not distribute unauthorized  
copies.

--
A young idea is a beautiful and a fragile thing. Attack people, not  
ideas.