Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Fri, 2008-01-04 at 12:07 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> 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.
----
Mark Fisher's interpretation is what it is. The referenced page however
is simply an advocacy of the plaintiff's position and the defendant's
position is clear, that those files were never in a shared folder that
was designated for sharing.

While the plaintiff says it was, the defendant says it wasn't and it is
up to the trier of fact to decide who is telling the truth. If you were
to give the defendant equal weight to his arguments, then there's no way
to come to a conclusion other than the one that Mark Fisher came to.

Moreover, what cannot be dismissed is that the plaintiff moved the
goalposts from their original brief for summary judgment and this
supplemental brief for summary judgment and it's clear that the
difference is the burden of proof which does effectually state that the
presence of the mp3 files, without evidence that anyone has actually
downloaded them constitutes the unauthorized use of plaintiff's copy
righting material.

All of your protestations notwithstanding, that represents the eye of
the storm in this story...the goal posts have moved, plaintiff is
claiming infringement based upon a significantly reduced standard.
Duh...big story.
----
> > 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.
----
probably because I am more than comfortable laying my motives bare for
all to see.
----
> > - 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?
----
hmm...I can't question your motives for asking why you have taken
plaintiff's side in this controversy but you are perfectly justified in
questioning my motives by suggesting that I am attempting to frighten
you (front loaded with that Reagan gem...there you go again...nice
touch, I noticed).

Curious though...you assume that Howell didn't preserve evidence (and
used allegedly) because you knew that was an unfounded assertion by
plaintiff but it's clear that by your own conclusion that you don't
believe in his innocence.

I thought I laid a very thoughtful predicate for the hypothetical
scenarios...it is the basis for creating law...you have to
hypothetically project the extreme possibilities to determine whether
the decisions are fairly applied. I think that most test suites for
programmers operate using that same principal. It's entirely logical and
it's ensures fairness. Your problem with those hypothetical situations
is that they expose the fault in your statements and conclusions.

Craig