RIAA v Howell cleanup

Sat Jan 12 14:47:22 MST 2008

On Jan 12, 2008, at 2:07 PM, Craig White wrote:

> 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.
> ----
>
> 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.

This is not a journal. I am not a journalist
>
>
> 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.

I simply don't understand. The post was mostly about dissension in the  
RIAA. Neither I nor anybody else has discussed that.

> 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.

It's not about feelings for me, it's  about standing. PLUG has none. I  
didn't want to be a wet blanket.
>
>
> 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

You have got to be kidding. The EFF filing says:
"Although Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges infringement of both their  
reproduction and distribution rights, Plaintiffs’ summary judgment  
motion is premised solely on the distribution claims...". this is of  
course the *exact opposite* of what Fisher said.
>
>
>
> the impact of this filing is discussed here...
> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#9016619692365894616

Of course the EFF has it right. They contradict Fisher.
>
>
> 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

Some blogger hangs his hat on a story that WaPo has *already  
retracted* and he gets a link from EFF. Big deal. That doesn't make it  
EFF's position.

Please try to stop seeing everything through the filter of which side  
you think people are on. It leads you to silly conclusions such as  
that Fisher and the EFF agree. Fisher and the EFF are both on Howell's  
side but their view of the case is entirely different. This is not  
subtile and it doesn't require a background in IP law to see it. One  
only needs to read the  Fisher article and the EFF filing side by side  
without lettings one's prejudices blind him to what they are saying.

---
Neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely  
or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.

-Bertrand Russell, philosopher, mathematician, author, Nobel laureate  
(1872-1970)