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"
> >
> >
> > wrong? how?
> 
> By saying that the RIAA was suing Howell for merely ripping files for  
> his personal use.
> 
----
one more thing, just to point out something that you obviously missed,
that was exactly the point the author was trying to make...if you look
at the 'comments' section below the article itself, you will the author
states...

"Yes, it's true that the RIAA accuses Howell of distributing music via a
sharing network. See the actual filings in the case here:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/01/index-of-litigation-documents.html#Atlantic_v_Howell

But that's not the point I'm making in the column. What's new in the
Howell case is the decision by lawyers for the recording industry to
argue that even a legally-obtained CD may not be transferred to an MP3
file on your computer. That argument can be found here, on page 15:

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief


Posted by: Fisher | December 30, 2007 12:08 AM"

the original article w/comments is here...
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/12/record_industry_to_consumers_e.html

Craig