Sccts guy contradicts RIAA document

[Craig White]

On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 16:14 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 3:34 PM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > Just to get last out the way first, he is still a journalist. His role
> > didn't change in the substantive way that you suggest and nothing in  
> > the
> > definition you provided suggests otherwise.

> He wasn't reporting on NPR, he was advocating. It was billed as a  
> debate and he had an opponent.  You might  want to  read the   
> definition again. Will you are at it, check out "reporter".
----
NPR could bill it however they wished. He was asked to defend his
article and that act doesn't change one from a reporter to an advocate.
----
> > Seriously though, the music industry (RIAA & patrons) versus the  
> > people
> > is not over, it's obviously barely started because the RIAA is hell  
> > bent
> > on suing their customers because they are committed to a business  
> > model
> > that is failing.
> 
> I agree. It's only the debate about whether Fisher mischaracterized  
> the plaintiff's position in the Howell that is over.
----
but that is only an issue for those that are consumed with making it the
issue.

reporters stumble onto stories without knowing why, how or even
understanding what they wrote when they wrote it. The good ones have
instincts that tell them that there's a story there even when they don't
know how to tell it.

do we have an expectation that a reporter can dissect a legal brief and
break it down into bite size pieces for the even less technically adept
public or do we at least hope that they know when things start to smell,
how to identify the rat?

I've been there...I've spoon fed reporters a story that actually ran on
front page several times and know that even when handed the entire
story, they blow it. The hope is that their instincts are good enough to
locate the outrage and eventually figure out why, even if the story has
already run.
----
> 
> > You (and Patry) seem to be focused on this page 15 and despite the  
> > fact
> > that isn't actually the issue, it's an incomplete picture and I'll
> > demonstrate why...
> 
> Finally! After all this time you seem to be able to focus in on the  
> only issue I ever raised. After all the accusations that I was taking  
> the RIAA's side in general is the truth starting to sink in?
----
every time you want to put a lip lock on page 15 of the plaintiff's
supplemental motion, I get concerned that you are so tunnel visioned
that you are losing the big picture...yes.
----
> > If nothing else, the NPR radio show proved definitively that author
> > Fisher's article was correct in its assertion, you may have  
> > liability if
> > you store digital copies of music on your hard drive even if they are
> > copies of CD's that you legally own. NPR's answer, just to refresh  
> > your
> > memory..."We have never pursued anyone for having a digital copy of
> > music taken from CD's that they own"
> 
> Of course it didn't prove anything of the kind. It only showed that  
> the RIAA will not unambiguously acknowledge that right. We knew that  
> already. The Howell case added *nothing* new.
----
No, that actually is the slippery slope, at least for the Fisher, the
writer and for me. I hadn't noticed the RIAA pulled their previous
definitions off the web. I hadn't heard the particulars of Parisier's
testimony and I certain didn't know that the RIAA was going to publicly
rehabilitate their own expert witness's testimony.

That's all very new...at least to me.

In fact, I remember you stating that you didn't have an opinion on that
yet (the specific reference was my assertion that the RIAA was moving
the goalposts).
----
> 
> Something strikes me as odd abbot this whole thread. You seem  
> incapable of acknowledging that we ever loose a PR battle to the RIAA  
> and yet you seem to almost despair about the long term. I, on the  
> other hand, have no problem admitting it when the RIAA kicks our butts  
> in some particular battle in the PR sphere but I  am very optimistic  
> that  we are going to win[1] in the long run.
> 
> [1] By 'win' I mean there will be significant reform in IP law.
----
significant reform in IP law? Do you mean now that the people are in
charge of government and corporate interests are no longer holding sway
over current legislation? Gag me.

If there was any battle, it's that a lot of people found out that
there's this entity called the RIAA hitting people very very hard and
that is a victory, if there is one to be gained, in your PR war.

Perhaps you'll feel differently if the Thomas verdict is tossed based
upon the events that stemmed from his statements on NPR.

Craig