Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Chris Gehlker]

On Jan 6, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Craig White wrote:

> 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.

The debate is over. We lost. Even such a leading light of the anti- 
RIAA 'freedom fighters" as William Patry says"

"But despite Ms. Pariser's comments in the Thomas case (again if  
accurately reported), in the Howell case, the RIAA is being unfairly  
maligned. I have read the brief (and you can too here). On page 15 of  
the brief, we find the flashpoint: "Once Defendant converted  
Plaintiffs' recordings into the compressed .mp3 format AND they are in  
his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies  
distributed by Plaintiffs."

I have capitalized the word "and" because it is here that the RIAA is  
making the point that placing the mp3 files into the share folder is  
what makes the copy unauthorized. The RIAA is not saying that the mere  
format copying of a CD to an mp3 file that resides only on one's hard  
drive and is never shared is infringement. This is a huge distinction  
and is surprising the Post didn't understand it. The brief also goes  
on to allege in great detail that the copies placed in the shared  
folder were actually disseminated from Howell's computer, thereby  
stating a traditional violation of the distribution right, even aside  
from the making available/deemed distribution theory."

It is here and it comes at the end of a long page attacking the RIAA  
but he did say it:
<http://williampatry.blogspot.com/2007/12/establishment-press-takes-riaa-on.html 
 >

[Here I snip some argument that the RIAA really does want  to take  
away our right to rip CDs for personal use and that they may well try  
to do so in the future]

I agree completely and have stated as much previously in this thread.  
That is precisely why Fisher's crying wolf in the Howell case is going  
to hurt us when the RIAA actually does make their move.

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

Once he agreed to debate on national radio, he became an advocate.
<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advocate>

--
Conscience is thoroughly well-bred and soon leaves off talking to  
those who do not wish to hear it.
-Samuel Butler, writer (1835-1902)