Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2008-01-05 at 22:27 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:

>  To understand the damage  
> that Fisher has  done us you have to put yourself in the frame of mind  
> of  a typical NPR user: fairly bright and curious but almost  
> completely uniformed about IP issues and with little knowledge of big  
> media. Then, in that mind-frame, listen to the audio file of the  
> debate. If you can do that, I'm sure you will see that Fisher did  
> indeed do us harm. If you can't do that, nothing I say will persuade   
> you.
----
I listed to it and I don't think that Fisher did anyone any harm but
rather effectively stated the rationale behind his article.

In the end, the 2 things that were walk away items were:

1. That RIAA is completely unwilling to provide clarity about whether
ripping your own store bought CD's to files on your own computer
constitutes fair use. The RIAA wants full power over all uses that one
might consider to be fair use but their definitions of fair use hinge on
the vague term of 'usually'.

2. That RIAA believes that saying that 'We have never brought legal
action against someone who has merely ripped store bought CD's that they
own, to files onto their own computer' is reassuring to the public. The
omission of one word is all that is necessary to change the entire
meaning of that statement, the word is 'YET'. In your parlance, wouldn't
the concept of eliding the word 'yet' be applicable here? It's clear
that the RIAA wants to hold bringing a legal action for this activity as
an option.

Those being the walk away notions, the RIAA's position on #2 completely
undermines their position on #1 and the RIAA's position on #1 undermines
their position on #2.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the RIAA offers a
slippery slope of assurances that hinge upon key words like 'USUALLY'
and 'YET' and when someone from the media suggests that these people are
not to be trusted, they yell foul. The are cursing the fruit from the
seeds that they have sewn.

Fisher's article and his presence in this exchange undermines the RIAA's
claim simply because it is proof that the public is not reassured.

Fisher accredited himself well. He did not represent 'us', he did not
damage 'us' and just the phrase 'us' as you use it is substantially
vague if not ubiquitous.

You are confusing him to be an advocate when all he really is, is a
journalist.

For clarity, look to Rudy Guiliani...9/11 changed everything.

Craig