RIAA v Howell cleanup

[Craig White]

On Sat, 2008-01-12 at 12:37 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 10, 2008, at 3:47 PM, Craig White wrote:
> 
> > Washington Post retracted (this will make Chris happy)
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/04/AR2008010403607_2.html
> 
> Very happy!
> >
> >
> > Wired refutes retraction...
> > http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaa-still-thin.html
> 
> I can't be upset about this since I  never confused Wired with  
> journalism but one thing does stand out and it is a mistake that a lot  
> of more reputable sources than Wired seem to make.[1]
> 
> This common mistake is in trying  to somehow infer that the RIAA is  
> making some positive statement on their position on ripping CDs simply  
> because they deny that they hold the opposite position. Listen again  
> to Cary Sherman on NPR. He is trying to disavow Pariser's "steals just  
> one copy" remark without actually saying  ripping is OK. In fact those  
> who want to hear that the RIAA condemned ripping and those  who want  
> to say that they endorsed it are both wrong. I seems clear that the  
> RIAA is shucking, jiving, twisting and in general trying to avoid  
> taking any  position at all.
> 
> When an association will not state out a clear position on an issue  
> the usual supposition is that they don't have internal consensus. I  
> suspect that that is exactly what is going on with the RIAA.
> 
> If the RIAA could wave a magic wand and make ripping impossible, i  
> suspect some of there members would oppose doing so. Business logic  
> suggests ripping is good for the industry. To believe otherwise one  
> has to accept that there is a significant market for dual purchases -  
> people who will happily pay for the same song twice, once on CD and  
> again as a download. This is  not creditable. People who purchase  
> their music in the form of a download obviously don't care whether  
> they get a CD. People who prefer a CD can always use a portable CD  
> player when enjoying their music 'on the go' is important. A portable  
> CD player is not as  convenient as an MP3 player but it is hardly  
> inconvenient enough to motivate many instances of buying the same song  
> twice. At the same time, by making CDs somewhat less useful, this  
> hypothetical magic bar to ripping CDs would make them a little less  
> desirable. The result would undoubtedly be some shift in the  
> consumer's entertainment budget away from recorded music. It was quite  
> likely that the total revenue received by the recording industry would  
> decline if CDs could not be ripped.
> 
> I couldn't find any econometric studies to address this specific issue  
> but that doesn't mean that the RIAA members haven't conducted their  
> own studies. What I could find was some quite professional studies   
> that show file sharers buy more music than  non-file sharers.  
> Apparently file sharing  can act as a vehicle for publicizing a song  
> just as radio does.
> 
> So if the ability to rip CDs is actually good for the recording  
> industry, why would some RIAA members oppose it?
> 
> The answer seems to be that some companies are so fanatic about IP  
> that they are totally irrational. The British equivalent to the RIAA  
> actually sued a car repair chain for allowing its employees to play  
> radios where their customers and  coworkers could hear them. They seem  
> to have totally forgotten that no one will buy a  song they never  
> heard. Then there is the case of the Sony Aibo, a little robot dog  
> that they used to sell for $1,500 a pop. Sony sued and enthusiast for  
> posting a program that made it dance to jazz. Sales plummeted and Sony  
> lost a nice little business. They seem to have lost sight of the fact  
> that writing and sharing programs for the Aibo was the whole point of  
> having one.
> 
> Of course Sony was behind the root kit on a CD fiasco and it was a  
> Sony rep who made the 'steals just one copy' remark.
> 
> Currently there are several stories about rumors that the RIAA is  
> going to be scaled back or reorganized. Wouldn't that be special? It  
> does add a little evidence to my speculation that there is internal  
> dissension.
> 
> [1] Criag White is definitely on my list of sources that are more  
> reputable than Wired.
----
I hope you'll forgive me if I don't add that to my resume...even if you
get my name right.

It's curious that you would rip Wired for lack of journalistic integrity
immediately after stating rumors without any reference. I like Wired, I
always have. I'll try not to let your aspersions color my impressions of
the magazine/web site.

I guess I didn't expect you to take up the arguments all over again but
perhaps you felt you were less than effective in all your previous
attempts so you decided to once again cover the same ground.

My point for this posting was about defendant Howell, how PLUG might
possibly be of assistance and what feelings people might have to help
defendant Howell as Hans asked. Evidently, you have none.

To this I will add that the Electronic Freedom Frontier has filed an
'amicus curae' brief to the judge on Atlantic v. Howell on behalf of
Howell...
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_080111AmicusBriefOpposSumJudgMot

the impact of this filing is discussed here...
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#9016619692365894616

Craig

Perhaps Chris wants to take on the EFF who essentially agrees with the
Wired blogger whom Chris feels disreputable...
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/01/are-personal-copies-digital-music-files-unauthorized-or-not