Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:51 PM, Craig White wrote:

> 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?

Exactly. I am saying that you  used exactly the same tactics.  It's  
right there for everyone to see.
>
>
> 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.

I never remotely suggested that every alarm ever raised about any  of  
the above issues  were  sensationalized. I said that one story in the  
Washington Post about the Howell case was sensationalized and that it  
was passed around by a lot of people, including myself, who didn't  
check the facts independently. I can't see how any behavior that  
corporate interests might indulge in justifies misrepresenting the  
facts.

--
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)