Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 5, 2008, at 11:10 PM, der.hans wrote:

> I do see your point that he wasn't covering the entire case. But, his
> article was about "the industry is taking its argument against music
> sharing one step further" not about all of the specifics of the cases
> against Howell and Thomas.

And he left out part of an AND clause that would have made his story  
"The music industry is up to the same old crap". I'm really not trying  
to make a big issue here. I only have one point. Fisher tried to  
sensationalize the Howell case and  he mischaracterized it to do so.

Here is the WaPo article:
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html 
 >

Look at paragraph 3. It is a falsehood.

One thing I haven't found is a transcript of the Jammie Thomas trial.  
I wonder if it is even remotely plausible that Pariser misheard the  
question.

The rest of your post argues that Fisher was emphasizing the new case  
law the RIAA was trying to make. That is precisely the issue. There is  
simply not evidence  that the RIAA was trying to make new case law.  
That is precisely why Fisher is accused of sensationalizing.

In the Thomas case Pariser clearly was trying to move into new  
territory. The problem there is that Pariser was acting as a witness,  
not a litigator. So nothing she said could make new case law. It seems  
much  more likely that the Pariser statement was a trial balloon and  
when it proved to be made off lead, the recording industry backed off.
--
No matter how far you have gone on the wrong road, turn back.
  -Turkish proverb