Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 08:33 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 4, 2008, at 8:04 AM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> >>
> >> 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
> 
> 
> That was not the link and I left the original link in the post so that  
> you  can simply look up and confirm that it is not the link.
> [snip]
----
Of course had you looked closely at this blog.washingtonpost.com link,
you would see a number of things...
- this is the original article that started the firestorm
- that within the 'comments' section below, the author comments
specifically to those who ascribed a misunderstood intent by the same
author of the what the author had intended.
- in those very comments, he refers specifically to the same copy of the
plaintiff's supplemental brief (the same link that you are calling 'your
link'), page 15 to illustrate his point.

Since you didn't get the point of the exercise, I am going to repeat
it...but this time, I will go very s-l-o-w-l-y

You stated that the author was wrong (again, the author referring to
Marc Fisher, writer for the Washington Post) because...

> > By saying that the RIAA was suing Howell for merely ripping files 
> > for his personal use.

To which I tried sought only to amplify via this same authors words
which are in the comments on the link above... NOTE: the next 10 lines
are directly quoted from the linked page and are the comments attributed
to Marc Fisher, writer for the Washington Post...

> "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"

If you have an argument with the author or merely wish to nit-pick his
words, you would probably be better off doing it with him. I am only
trying to discuss the general themes that have come to the fore because
of the events, this article and the many, many articles that are an
indication that this has become an alarming event for so many.
----
> 
> > ----
> > 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 publicly accused me of being a shill for the RIAA, twice. Of  
> course I think you wish me harm. You are doing me harm by attacking my  
> reputation. Apparently your ill will does  stem from the simple fact  
> that we disagree but I can't really know your motives.
----
I think you could drive a truck between 'accusing me of being a shill
for the RIAA' and what I did say...'Again, I have to wonder why you are
so eager to take the plaintiff's side on these issues'

If that is out of bounds, we should cease all discussion because I am
clearly never going to be able to delineate our disagreement in a
fashion that isn't offensive to you. I would probably suggest that you
refrain from all serious controversy since apparently, you can't deal.

Ad hominem attack - bullshit
----
> > 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.
> 
> I keep saying that the particular file sharing protocol doesn't  
> matter. The fact that the file server is only accessible within my  
> household is  what matters. I don't understand why you keep going on  
> about protocols.
----
Evidently logical extensions don't seem to cross your mind but they are
absolutely essential in any legal frame because the law always considers
precedents. So to make this easier for you to follow, let me give you a
few hypothetical situations which considering that you already have
mp3/m4a files on your computer, obviously intended to be 'authorized'
copies...

- You have a router between your computer and the Internet. The router
suddenly dies. You connect your computer directly to the cable/dsl modem
and get a public ip address forgetting that you are sharing your files
with your LAN. You are noticed by the RIAA

- You have done some work at home over the weekend but didn't have any
blank CD's to put the files on to bring them to work. You turn on web
server and share your $HOME directory so you can grab the files from
your home computer while you are at work. You are noticed by the RIAA

- Your wireless lan allows nearby people access. You are noticed by the
RIAA

- You take some CD's with you so you can listen to them in the car while
someone else in the household listens to mp3 files from those same CD's.

- Your kid comes home from school and installs this software he heard
about...

The nexus shouldn't be hard to conceptualize.

Craig