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?
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.
Craig
---------------------------------------------------
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
(text/plain)