Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 4, 2008, at 9:55 AM, Craig White wrote:

>
> 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...
>


I see, You simply choose to believe Mark Fisher rather than read the  
document for yourself. His reporting was sloppy and/or dishonest. The  
fact that he persists in his error doesn't  change that. There is  
simply  *nothing* on the  referenced page to suggest that the record  
industry would have sued Howell or anybody  else for simply ripping  
CDs for personal. Rather the cite is very explicit in saying that they  
they are suing him because he ripped the files *and* shared them with  
the public. It's right there in black and white.


>> "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'

Which does correspond exactly to 'why are you taking Saddam Hussein's  
side on these issues?' There is simply no difference in the  form of  
the argument and, given your expressed opinions about the recording  
industry, not all that much difference in the intensity.
>
>
> 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.

Any yet I am able to converse with you without questioning your motives.
>
>
> 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.

There you go again, attempting to frighten me into agreeing with you.  
Rest assured that when I said I take reasonable measures that includes  
things like WPA encryption on my WiFi link. I'll tell you what,  
though. If somehow I did inadvertently share files I would do what  
Howell allegedly  did not do. I would preserve all the evidence that  
the file sharing was indeed inadvertent. That way i  could expect  
maximum sympathy from the courts and any jury.

The RIAA is scary  enough. Why make scenarios up?

--
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)