Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:36 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 11:28 AM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> >
> > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 11:21 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Craig White wrote:
> >>
> >>> 5 days after Washington Post published the story, the Arizona  
> >>> Republic
> >>> finally figured out that there was a story here...
> >>
> >> Except that the story the Washington Post published was wrong,
> >> sensationalized, and deliberately elided part of a quote so as to
> >> dramatically change its meaning.
> > ----
> > huh?
> >
> > deliberately elided what?
> "and put them in his KaZaA shared folder"
----
which of course is a primary area of dispute between Howell and
Plaintiff. The article did not dissect specific legal disputes but
rather gave the general import of the dispute at hand. I note that the
article seemed to be guided by the NY Attorney Roy Beckerman who is
intimately involved with many of these cases on behalf of the defendants
of current and past RIAA actions. 
----
> >
> >
> > wrong? how?
> 
> By saying that the RIAA was suing Howell for merely ripping files for  
> his personal use.
----
I think it's pretty clear that is exactly the point that Roy Beckerman
is trying to make. Of course, what would he know? He's only the lead
attorney for the defense in many of these cases and also the proprietor
of this website...

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/

Again, I have to wonder why you are so eager to take the plaintiff's
side on these issues.

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.

Craig