Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 00:25 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 3, 2008, at 10:34 PM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 2008-01-03 at 17:47 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> >> On Jan 3, 2008, at 2:01 PM, Craig White wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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
> >>
> >> No it can't. There is simply nothing on page 15 that is remotely like
> >> that. Are you perhaps reading "unauthorized" as synonymous with
> >> "illegal"? Perhaps you are reading "and" as synonymous with "or"?
> > ----
> > that was the authors own words and the authors description of his  
> > intent
> > for his story (actually, now just a partial since you have removed  
> > some
> > of the context).
> >
> > The reason that I included the amplification by the author was because
> > it so completely spoke to your statement about why the author was
> > wrong...
> 
> Who is this author you are talking about?
----
'This author' is Marc Fisher, and what he specifically authored was the
article in the Washington Post that caused the firestorm. Please pay
attention.

Now that you have completely sidetracked the thread, I will remind you
of how we got here. You claimed that the author didn't mean to make that
specific point and I gave you the direct reference in the authors words,
he made it clear that it was precisely the point he intended to make.

again, I will give you the link to this...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/rawfisher/2007/12/record_industry_to_consumers_e.html

which is the original article and the amplifications by the author
because there are some, like you that simply don't believe that he meant
what he wrote.
----
>  You said "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" and  referenced as specific page on a specific  
> document as evidence." But the page you referenced simply doesn't say  
> what you think it does. Just read it again. Note the "and".
----
Again, I provided the author's comments - if you wish to nit-pick words,
you would be better served by nit-picking words with him.
----
> "Unauthorized" simply means 'not authorized'. The copies made by  
> Howell were never authorized simply because Howell never had a letter  
> from Atlantic Records stating "We authorize you to copy the following  
> songs:..." The didn't "become" unauthorized. All of us who have ripped  
> CDs have "unauthorized" copies of the music on our computers. The  
> doesn't mean we have illegal copies. Copyright law gives us the right  
> to  make copies for our personal use without authorization from anyone  
> so long  as we retain an "authorized" copy, the original CD. Copyright  
> law also gives us the right to "distribute" the authorized copy by  
> selling it to a used record store or giving it as a gift provided we  
> first destroy all the unauthorized copies we have made. The RIAA  
> attorneys are simply saying that even if Howell legally purchased all  
> these songs and and therefor has a right to give them away, he is not  
> giving away the copies that he legally purchased.
----
actually, if we want to nit-pick, copyright law doesn't necessarily
define specific rights of those who purchase but case law over time has
to some extent, provided a frame work for things we tend to regard as
acceptable use. RIAA, by their actions is attempting to further define,
further restrict and obtain declaratory adjudication of their positions
and thereby alter the frame work of acceptable use. That is why so many
articles, blogs, stories have come out on this particular set of
circumstances.
----
> > The nexus is obvious, I'm disappointed you don't see it. Computers are
> > replete with file sharing software. When the RIAA shifts their focus
> > from kazaa to SMB/NFS/etc., are you finally going to see the light?
> 
> I have music files ripped from legal CDs on my computers. I have a  
> file server running on one of them. I have taken reasonable  
> precautions to ensure that said file server is not accessible from  
> outside my household. I invite and encourage you to share this  
> information with the RIAA or any of it's members  so long as you  
> include the part about the reasonable precautions. I am absolutely  
> confident that I am at no risk from the RIAA for sharing music files  
> within my own household. So go ahead, Craig. Forward this post to any  
> record company executive that you choose. We both know that they won't  
> take any action against me.
----
so much for your ad hominem defense...the very nature of the above
presumes that I wish some harm to come to you. It's as if you have
absorbed nothing that I have been saying and merely want harm to fall
upon you because we have differing opinions.

You probably need to familiarize yourself with Niemöller - just because
it isn't the file sharing protocols that you are presently using isn't
the current target of the RIAA doesn't mean that tomorrow, you won't be
gracing their crosshairs tomorrow.

Craig