Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 19:02 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > NPR could bill it however they wished. He was asked to defend his
> > article and that act doesn't change one from a reporter to an  
> > advocate.
> 
> It really does. If he were content to be a reporter, he wouldn't  
> become say anything more than "I stand by my story". It's  axiomatic  
> that you can't be let yourself be part of the story and pretend to  
> report on it objectively. The definitions of 'advocate' and 'reporter'  
> are plain. There is no point in discussing this issue further.
> 
> > reporters stumble onto stories without knowing why, how or even
> > understanding what they wrote when they wrote it.
> 
> This clearly describes Fisher
> 
> > do we have an expectation that a reporter can dissect a legal brief  
> > and
> > break it down into bite size pieces for the even less technically  
> > adept
> > public or do we at least hope that they know when things start to  
> > smell,
> > how to identify the rat?
> 
> I expect reporters to be able to read.  I expect them to report facts  
> accurately.
> 
> > I've been there...I've spoon fed reporters a story that actually ran  
> > on
> > front page several times and know that even when handed the entire
> > story, they blow it. The hope is that their instincts are good  
> > enough to
> > locate the outrage and eventually figure out why, even if the story  
> > has
> > already run.
> 
> When a reporter gets the facts wrong they blew it, period. No amount  
> of 'instinct' after the fact can redeem them. I do expect reporters to  
> print a retraction when it is pointed out to them that they got the  
> facts wrong. Many people are waiting for Fisher to do this.
> 
> > every time you want to put a lip lock on page 15 of the plaintiff's
> > supplemental motion, I get concerned that you are so tunnel visioned
> > that you are losing the big picture...yes.
> 
> What is actually on page 15 of the plaintiffs supplemental motion is  
> the pivotal *fact* in the whole discussion. It is becoming  
> increasingly clear that you are willing to forgive a reporter for  
> misstating a fact so long as he generally condemns those with whom you  
> disagree and praises those with whom you agree. I will never feel that  
> way. I want to make my own judgement. If a reporter is inaccurate i  
> simply don't care if he is a really good guy and can 'smell out'  
> evildoers.
> 
> > significant reform in IP law? Do you mean now that the people are in
> > charge of government and corporate interests are no longer holding  
> > sway
> > over current legislation? Gag me.
> 
> Yep. You really are pessimistic all right.
> 
> > If there was any battle, it's that a lot of people found out that
> > there's this entity called the RIAA hitting people very very hard and
> > that is a victory, if there is one to be gained, in your PR war.
> 
> A lot of people found out that 'the RIAA tells the truth and their  
> opponents make stuff up'. You also are confirming my opinion that you  
> can't admit that we ever loose a battle.
> 
> > Perhaps you'll feel differently if the Thomas verdict is tossed based
> > upon the events that stemmed from his statements on NPR.
> 
> You really can't grasp my position at all. How can anything that  
> happens in the Thomas case change the accuracy of Fisher's reporting  
> on the Howell case?
----
because some people want to dissect the legal pleadings to the point
where they no longer have a sense of the bigger story.

The story wasn't what was in the pleadings, regardless of what Fisher
said. He got the story right but he is not, nor will he ever be an
intellectual property expert.

Plaintiff continually refuses to admit that defendant has any legal
right to have mp3 versions of CD's on his computer for any reason. 

That was always the gist of his story and nothing has changed. If the
RIAA wishes to prove that assertion false, they neither did so in their
filings nor on radio.

Craig