Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

Why all of sudden the switch to html mail? Ugh...read inline

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 17:07 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> 
> On Jan 5, 2008, at 9:23 AM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > not unlike the article that you gave us early on from cio magazine.
>
> But more to the point in addressing the failings  of Fisher
> > 
> > 
> > While I would agree that I wish Mark Fisher could have articulated
> > the
> > issues with greater precision, that seems to be a frequent problem
> > for
> > mass media outlets, especially on issues surrounding technology.
> 
> I would  characterize it this way:

> Mark Fisher has done more to advance the cause of the RIAA than any
> other individual in the  history of that organization. Many
> journalists seem to struggle with technology but must will issue a
> retractioin when one is clearly required. By  continuing to  defend
> his indefensible conduct continues to be a big asset to the RIAA. He
> even allowed them  to slip out from under their worst PR blunder, the
> "steals only one copy" remark, with a  modicum of  grace.
----
except that he didn't...

http://www.p2pnet.net/story/14537

from which I will quote Mark Fisher (via the author)...

“The RIAA is absolutely right that the basis of the Howell suit, like
tens of thousands of others the industry has filed against its potential
customers, is the music found in Howell’s shared files,” Fisher told me,
going on:

The author of on this link goes on to quote Mark Fisher...

'Of course, Howell denies that the music was in shared files, but that’s
for the court to sort out. While the Howell case is very much like those
other suits the RIAA has filed, what’s new is the argument by the
industry attorney that when a legally-obtained piece of music is
transferred to a computer, that is an “unauthorized copy.” This, in
addition to the statement I quote from a Sony official in a separate
case, demonstrates a disconnect between the industry’s public policy
statements and the legal arguments used by some of their lawyers.'
----
> > If NPR
> > had invited Roy Beckerman to debate the spokesman for the RIAA, the
> > outcome would have been different because Beckerman is clearly
> > capable
> > of dissecting the legal issues surrounding this controversy. I
> > guarantee
> > you the RIAA's Sherman would have never have debated with Beckerman.
> > Bullies don't enter into a fight that they know going in that they
> > won't
> > win...that's a rule that bullies understand

> Exactly. The RIAA is not stupid (most of the time) and they aren't
> going to engage in any debate where they are going to look bad. Fisher
> is their perfect foil, a self appointed spokesman for the opposition
> who will take indefensible positions and then persist in trying to
> defend them.
----
Mark Fisher wrote an article. You are making him into some kind of
self-appointed spokesman but that's your issue and your problem.

The funny thing is that while you and perhaps I might have sold him
short (at least in his appearance on NPR), he got Sherman from RIAA to
make a horrible blunder regarding the testimony from Jennifer Parisier,
(Sony lawyer) which is going to haunt the RIAA big time.
----
> > The fact is that most of the public is guilty of all of the same
> > activities with the exception that most of us don't install KaZaA
> > software. We do have legally authorized copies and software that
> > automatically makes them shared and the only distinction is the
> > actual
> > sharing protocols

> Again, this simply flies in the face of my experience if by "shared"
> you mean 'shared outside the household'. Most people don't install
> KaZaA or limewire or anything like them. You need to be  more
>  selective in the company your keep.
----
Today's daemons might be Limewire or Kazaa but tomorrow's daemons very
well could be CIFS/SMB/AFPoverTCP/NFS/HTTP. The RIAA doesn't
differentiate which protocols are in play. You seem to think that you
can manage to prevent the existence of files on your computer from
leaking out into the world and I'm impressed...I am much less confident
that I can contain everything on the networks that I run but perhaps I
am just overly paranoid. I can tell you for certain (and I know that you
use a Macintosh), that given the security track record of Quicktime the
past 6 months and the fact that exploits existed for weeks while Apple
scrambled to provide patches, that one can never be sure that their
network is secure.

Even more to the issue...how can you guarantee that you and your wife
(I'm assuming that you're married) aren't both listening to the same
'authorized' copy at different places at different times? Would that
qualify as an unauthorized use? Would you turn yourself in? Would you
consent to an RIAA audit to ensure your compliance? If you put your
music on your iPod and go on vacation and leave your CD's at home, is
that still acceptable use? How about if you get a divorce and split the
CD's with your wife...do you remove the music that you don't have the
physical CD? Can you legally download an mp3/m4a of a CD that you
already own? Can you legally download an mp3/m4a of an LP (analog, vinyl
form) that you own? Can you legally use a device like the USB turntable
to digitally capture your LP's?

Heck the RIAA has deliberately muddied the waters of what they consider
to be acceptable use.

Moreover, if you actually digest the linked page, the testimony of
Jennifer Parisier, it's clear that the RIAA believes that it is no
longer acceptable use to rip your own CD's at all. Even the page you
linked at news.com makes it clear..."Here was an opportunity for Sherman
to declare once and for all that copying CDs for personal use is lawful.
He stopped short of that..." (spare me the legal bs he continued on with
because even the author was concerned by this).

Now, consider this, that there is an archived page of what the RIAA's
own web site used to say...it has been removed from the RIAA web site...

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=401886&threshold=0&commentsort=5&mode=flat&cid=21859278

Evidently, you aren't tracking on the idea that they are clobbering any
notions you have regarding what constitutes fair use. I vaguely recall
you mention something about 'explicit' and this clearly flies in the
face of your 'explicit' - which I noticed that you declined to answer
when I asked you to clarify.

I think if you consider answers to the various acceptable uses I have
asked above, are you CERTAIN that RIAA will agree with your definition
of acceptable usage or merely comfortable with thinking that they won't
ask and won't ever know?
----
> 
> > t's hardly surprising that there are apologists or bloggers or
> > publications that also take lots of advertising revenues are
> > supporting
> > the RIAA position. In the end, attack the messenger...lovely, nice
> > hatchet job.

> Yet another ad hominem attack. It is the opposite of persuasive.
> Anyone reading the Sandoval article will realize that that he goes out
> of his way to point out that the RIAA spokesman won't go as far as he
> could. To attack Sandoval's journalistic credibility just emphasizes
> how solid his facts are and seems desperate and mean spirited. You
> have no evidence that Sandoval is less than honorable.
----
solid? if his facts were so solid, why did he resort to attacking the
messenger? Are you suggesting that I am saying something untoward by
mentioning that the publishers of his blog are selling advertising to
the same people he is defending? Yeah, that's ad hominem.
----
> 
> You know what? It's over. A google search demonstrates that nobody
> except possibly a handful of fanatics is defending Fisher any more.
> The  RIAA was given a forum, on NPR no less, to make the case that all
> who oppose them are dishonest and they exploited it brilliantly. They
>  have probably milked the situation for all they can.
----
sez you...in the process, Sherman provided grounds for
dismissal/overturning the verdict, discredited his own witness,
demonstrated to the country that they have altered the very notion of
what they consider fair use and you show no concern.

You probably need to upgrade your googling Q because it ain't up to par.
I've given you several new and interesting links today alone.

The fact is, via the bad press they are taking on this and all of the
other litigation, the bad press they are getting from investment
advisors such as Motley Fool (which is syndicated and substantial), the
RIAA is desperate for good publicity and will undoubtedly resort to a
lot of chicanery to rehabilitate their image. They certainly aren't
going to stop here and there's likely to be a lot of media plays that
they will put forth, probably in scale with their desperation to bail
water from a sinking ship. Even SCO put forth a really great display
before they went down in flames.

Now I'm not saying again that you are taking the side of the RIAA, I
only want to suggest that your positions are suspiciously similar to
those of the RIAA. I'm not the least bit offended that by inference
'only a handful of fanatics is defending Fisher anymore' you are
likewise making the ad hominem attack you accuse me of doing. Go for it
I say.

Finally, I will conclude with Roy Beckerman's comments which you have
already agreed with me would have been a much better person to 'spar'
with RIAA's Sherman. I think he brings clarity to the controversy...

"When the RIAA puts in court papers in the Howell case that it did not
mean that the copies themselves were unauthorized because they were
ripped from cd’s into mp3’s, then and only then will there be any
security on this issue."

"I know the RIAA lawyers well, and I am absolutely positive that they
meant what they said, and were trying to hoodwink the judge into giving
them language they could then use as a precedent in other cases, trying
to take advantage of the fact that Mr. Howell has no legal
representation."

"They may back down due to the firestorm of public reaction and the dive
in their stock prices, but I am completely confident that this is the
game they were playing."

Craig