On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:07:02 -0700 Craig White <craigwhite@azapple.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 12:37 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> > On Jan 10, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Craig White wrote:
> >
> > > Washington Post retracted (this will make Chris happy)
> > >
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403607_2.html
> >
> > Very happy!
> > >
> > >
> > > Wired refutes retraction...
> > > http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaa-still-thin.html
> >
> > I can't be upset about this since I never confused Wired with
> > journalism but one thing does stand out and it is a mistake that a
> lot
> > of more reputable sources than Wired seem to make.[1]
> >
> > This common mistake is in trying to somehow infer that the RIAA
> is
> > making some positive statement on their position on ripping CDs
> simply
> > because they deny that they hold the opposite position. Listen
> again
> > to Cary Sherman on NPR. He is trying to disavow Pariser's "steals
> just
> > one copy" remark without actually saying ripping is OK. In fact
> those
> > who want to hear that the RIAA condemned ripping and those who
> want
> > to say that they endorsed it are both wrong. I seems clear that
> the
> > RIAA is shucking, jiving, twisting and in general trying to avoid
>
> > taking any position at all.
> >
> > When an association will not state out a clear position on an
> issue
> > the usual supposition is that they don't have internal consensus.
> I
> > suspect that that is exactly what is going on with the RIAA.
> >
> > If the RIAA could wave a magic wand and make ripping impossible, i
>
> > suspect some of there members would oppose doing so. Business
> logic
> > suggests ripping is good for the industry. To believe otherwise
> one
> > has to accept that there is a significant market for dual
> purchases -
> > people who will happily pay for the same song twice, once on CD
> and
> > again as a download. This is not creditable. People who purchase
>
> > their music in the form of a download obviously don't care whether
>
> > they get a CD. People who prefer a CD can always use a portable CD
>
> > player when enjoying their music 'on the go' is important. A
> portable
> > CD player is not as convenient as an MP3 player but it is hardly
>
> > inconvenient enough to motivate many instances of buying the same
> song
> > twice. At the same time, by making CDs somewhat less useful, this
>
> > hypothetical magic bar to ripping CDs would make them a little
> less
> > desirable. The result would undoubtedly be some shift in the
> > consumer's entertainment budget away from recorded music. It was
> quite
> > likely that the total revenue received by the recording industry
> would
> > decline if CDs could not be ripped.
> >
> > I couldn't find any econometric studies to address this specific
> issue
> > but that doesn't mean that the RIAA members haven't conducted
> their
> > own studies. What I could find was some quite professional studies
>
> > that show file sharers buy more music than non-file sharers.
> > Apparently file sharing can act as a vehicle for publicizing a
> song
> > just as radio does.
> >
> > So if the ability to rip CDs is actually good for the recording
> > industry, why would some RIAA members oppose it?
> >
> > The answer seems to be that some companies are so fanatic about IP
>
> > that they are totally irrational. The British equivalent to the
> RIAA
> > actually sued a car repair chain for allowing its employees to
> play
> > radios where their customers and coworkers could hear them. They
> seem
> > to have totally forgotten that no one will buy a song they never
>
> > heard. Then there is the case of the Sony Aibo, a little robot dog
>
> > that they used to sell for $1,500 a pop. Sony sued and enthusiast
> for
> > posting a program that made it dance to jazz. Sales plummeted and
> Sony
> > lost a nice little business. They seem to have lost sight of the
> fact
> > that writing and sharing programs for the Aibo was the whole point
> of
> > having one.
> >
> > Of course Sony was behind the root kit on a CD fiasco and it was a
>
> > Sony rep who made the 'steals just one copy' remark.
> >
> > Currently there are several stories about rumors that the RIAA is
>
> > going to be scaled back or reorganized. Wouldn't that be special?
> It
> > does add a little evidence to my speculation that there is
> internal
> > dissension.
> >
> > [1] Criag White is definitely on my list of sources that are more
>
> > reputable than Wired.
> ----
> I hope you'll forgive me if I don't add that to my resume...even if
> you
> get my name right.
>
> It's curious that you would rip Wired for lack of journalistic
> integrity
> immediately after stating rumors without any reference. I like
> Wired, I
> always have. I'll try not to let your aspersions color my
> impressions of
> the magazine/web site.
>
> I guess I didn't expect you to take up the arguments all over again
> but
> perhaps you felt you were less than effective in all your previous
> attempts so you decided to once again cover the same ground.
>
> My point for this posting was about defendant Howell, how PLUG
> might
> possibly be of assistance and what feelings people might have to
> help
> defendant Howell as Hans asked. Evidently, you have none.
>
> To this I will add that the Electronic Freedom Frontier has filed
> an
> 'amicus curae' brief to the judge on Atlantic v. Howell on behalf
> of
> Howell...
> http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_080111AmicusBriefOpposSumJudgMot
>
> the impact of this filing is discussed here...
> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#9016619692365894616
>
> Craig
>
> Perhaps Chris wants to take on the EFF who essentially agrees with
> the
> Wired blogger whom Chris feels disreputable...
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/are-personal-copies-digital-music-files-unauthorized-or-not