Am 06. Jan, 2008 schwätzte Chris Gehlker so:

> 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.

I disagree. I read the docuement from Atlantic the same as he does. I
think it's the document from Atlantic that's the falsehood.

I think we're going to just have to realize we disagree with the
interpretation of the document.

> 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.

I won't disagree the he was sensationalizing. I will, however, say that
his reading of the document could very well be correct. Just because
you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you...

The RIAA has definitely taken a stance against fair use and is trying to
limit fair use. I'd rather overreact when the RIAA tests the waters than
just presume it's an accidental oversight.

Without fair use we haven't a chance for media support in Free Software.
Even I think we need media support to be viable.

> 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.

Did her statement get stricken from the record? Was it still in effect for
the jury during deliberation?

ciao,

der.hans
-- 
#  https://www.LuftHans.com/        http://www.CiscoLearning.org/
#  To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we
#  are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic
#  and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.
#  -- Theodore Roosevelt, editorial in the Kansas City Star, 07May1918