RIAA v Howell cleanup

Sat Jan 12 14:58:21 MST 2008

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 14:07:02 -0700 Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com>
writes:
> 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/AR2008010
403607_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_080111Amicu
sBriefOpposSumJudgMot
> 
> 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-fi
les-unauthorized-or-not

Why the RIAA's "new found" reticence to say copying your own music is not
a copyright violation? 
Perhaps because their lawyers have recently advised them to quit saying
it; for some convoluted legal reason?  

It is curious, because in the past, the RIAA certainly has openly said
personal copying was okay with them (even great!).  
Take a look at this archive of their "Ask the RIAA" Q&A.

http://web.archive.org/web/20070516072606/http://www.riaa.com/issues/ask/
default.asp#stand

"What is your stand on MP3?

This is one of those urban myths like alligators in the toilet. MP3 is
just a technology and the technology itself never did anything wrong!
There are lots of legal MP3s from great artists on many, many online
sites. The problem is that some people use MP3 to take one copy of an
album and make that copy available on the Internet for hundreds of
thousands of people. That's not fair. If you choose to take your own CDs
and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player,
that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at
work, in the car and on the jogging trail. But the fact that technology
exists to enable unlimited Internet distribution of music copies doesn't
make it right." 
Marvin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/pipermail/plug-discuss/attachments/20080112/76af7897/attachment.htm 