On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Craig White wrote: > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 17:34 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote: >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 11:53 AM, Craig White wrote: >> >>> Again, I have to wonder why you are so eager to take the plaintiff's >>> side on these issues. >> >> As I wonder why you are so eager to descend to the ad hominem attack. >> [sigh] On another list I got a bunch of "Why are you supporting >> Saddam >> Hussein?" questions for pointing out that there was little evidence >> that Iraq was involved with 9/11, so I shouldn't be surprised to >> encounter that kind of thing here. > ---- > let me see if I get this right...you accuse me of an ad hominem attack > and then in the very next sentence, you are comparing my retorts to > accusing you of supporting Saddam Hussein? Did I get that right? Exactly. I am saying that you used exactly the same tactics. It's right there for everyone to see. > > > Wow! - I won't dignify it any further > ---- >> >>> You might want to check out another take of this story (I believe >>> these >>> people are local too) at the Motley Fool... >>> >>> http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/01/02/were-all-thieves-to-the-riaa.aspx >>> >>> but I gather you would consider this to be elided, sensational and >>> wrong >>> too. >> >> >> I do consider it to be a bit sensational. I'll tell you why. >> >> >> First it says: >> "Current litigation against Jeffrey Howell of Arizona shows that >> while >> the industry's gone after him for file-sharing, not ripping MP3s ..." >> >> >> Which is the only point I have ever tried to make. >> >> >> it goes on to say "... it's also taking exception to recordings on >> his >> computer that he copied from CDs he purchased, with the outlook that >> Howell is also liable for the "unauthorized copies" he made and >> placed >> on his PC." Which contradicts the first half of the sentence and is >> totally unsupported. This is not hard to understand. Making an >> unauthorized copy is not a violation of copyright. I >> am completely within my rights to duplicate my Lord of the Rings DVDs >> even though no one authorized me to do it. Distributing a copyrighted >> work is also not, by itself, a violation of copyright. I donate books >> to the Library all the time and have even been know to give away CDs. >> This is perfectly legal. >> >> >> But first the Washington Post and now the Motley Fool posting try to >> portray the RIAA as having argued in the Howell case that simply >> making a copy is a violation of copyright. The only evidence that >> the >> Motley Fool presents is that some lawyer for a different record >> company in another case made an asinine statement and that the RIAA >> is >> generally an evil organization. It's the old Saddam Hussein used >> nerve >> gas on his own people therefore he must have been behind 9/11 >> argument >> again. > ---- > I gather this is intended to innoculate against an ad hominem > attack. I > hope you don't mind if I pass on the metaphors to Saddam/Iraq > > It's not as if Motley Fool hasn't already looked at this issue and > weighed in long before the particulars of this case came to light... > > http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2007/10/04/riaa-the-beatings-go-on.aspx > > http://www.fool.com/investing/high-growth/2007/10/10/the-music-industrys-downward-spiral.aspx > > both from earlier this year... > > More importantly, the fact that the blogosphere and other technology, > media, business analysts have sounded alarms is not as you suggest, > because it's sensationalized, but rather the drumbeat of the notion > that > the corporate interests, via DMCA, via the courts, via surreptitiously > installed spyware, via their own failed business model that beat up > the > consumer mercilessly have crossed over the line. This goes way beyond > the fine points of twisted legalese that burdens them to prove little > and suffers on the common man. It has to end. I never remotely suggested that every alarm ever raised about any of the above issues were sensationalized. I said that one story in the Washington Post about the Howell case was sensationalized and that it was passed around by a lot of people, including myself, who didn't check the facts independently. I can't see how any behavior that corporate interests might indulge in justifies misrepresenting the facts. -- The folly of mistaking a paradox for a discovery, a metaphor for a proof, a torrent of verbiage for a spring of capital truths, and oneself for an oracle, is inborn in us. -Paul Valery, poet and philosopher (1871-1945) --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss