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.

> 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.
--
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)