RIAA Sues Man for Copying Legal CDs to His PC? Nope.

[Johnd]

They get stuff wrong *all the time*.

My take on it johnnythan is not that they get it "wrong", but they selectively edit, and sift and winnow until they perfect the story they want. I see no flagrant lies in any of the reports that I've read, aside from the obvious editorials inserted into the reports...just a neat nip and tucking of the facts, with heavy doses of editorial poppycock inserted at will.

It is up to the readers to discern editorials from unadulterated reporting, whether or not the account is properly entitled "editorial." Every account I read was rife with heavy editorial accounting.

 

[jonnythan]

Well in my opinion they got this one wrong. They reported that he was being sued for one reason, when the reality is that he was being sued for a completely different reason.

It's not just selective editing and on-the-fly editorializing, though those are certainly a huge problem. The worst things about media reporting are often fundamental misunderstandings of the subject, IMO.

 

[Johnd]

Well in my opinion they got this one wrong. They reported that he was being sued for one reason, when the reality is that he was being sued for a completely different reason.

It's not just selective editing and on-the-fly editorializing, though those are certainly a huge problem. The worst things about media reporting are often fundamental misunderstandings of the subject, IMO.

Perhaps. A less benign view is they custom tailor the story to suit their purpose. Either way, we agree the media got this one wrong.

And Kudos to Clint and the team for punctually cleaning it up and reporting the sordid, albeit factual details. It is the only media I have read to date (24 hours) that is reporting the cold hard facts about the defendant's misdeeds, rather than the evils of the RIAA. Thanks Clint.

 

[birdonthebeach]

Good work as always, Clint. And you got it right. The big media companies are dinosaurs, and they deserve what's coming to them in lost revenue due to an antiquated business model. But stealing is stealing - their stupidity does not justify someone stealing their products. If you think it sucks or costs too much, then don't consume it. If you want something enough to steal it, then it apparently is worth what they are charging for it.

 

[Johnd]

As an update:

I have emailed Marc Fisher at the Washington Post informing him of the serious omissions in his Sunday report on the RIAA (Atlantic v Howell), that effectively render his account inaccurate, and, in fact, misleading, on several points. I read his story first, and have for a quarter century held the Post in high regard, and as a largely dispassionate, factual news source. I will not hold them is such high esteem (The Washington Post) if they fail to issue some sort of correction and/or retraction on this story by Marc Fisher.

I've heard enough premature, ill-informed slamming of the RIAA to last me a very long time. I am not a defender of the RIAA, nor am I a hater of free speech or fair use. This is neither. When our nation's leading news sources emit such a flagrant distortion of the truth, one cannot help but be skeptical of all information. And perhaps that is a good thing, and is necessary in this day and age of instantaneous, free-floating blogs. Perhaps we need to dig deeper to get the whole story, and all the facts, before passing judgment. Perhaps we need to continually remind ourselve that we are better-informed when we obtain our news and information from several valid sources. One cannot make a well-informed decision without all of the key facts. Hopefully, this last episode of RIAA bashing has given some of the avid RIAA haters here and elsewhere something to think about.

 

[mtrycrafts]

As an update:

I have emailed Marc Fisher at the Washington Post informing him of the serious omissions in his Sunday report on the RIAA (Atlantic v Howell), that effectively render his account inaccurate, and, in fact, misleading, on several points. .

Let us know if and when he responds. Curious about his response.

 

[gus6464]

I was worried there for a second as I have all my ripped music on a shared folder so that my wife and I can listen to it through the home network. But then again my wireless network is encrypted with WPA2 and unbroadcasted SSID. Wonder if the RIAA thinks what I am doing is illegal. But then again all the songs are ripped in full uncompressed format and 50mb a pop.

 

[Johnd]

Let us know if and when he responds. Curious about his response.

Well, here it is:



Thanks for your note. Yes, the industry found the Howells by searching for computers that were sharing files through Kazaa. But that's not relevant to the column I wrote. The news here is the novel argument that the industry lawyer makes in his brief. In this case, the defendant claimed he had no idea he was sharing files, but that's irrelevant to the argument advanced by the recording companies' lawyer, who makes the case that the act of transferring music from a legally-purchased CD is in and of itself illegal, even if the file is not being shared.
Here's a link to the recording industry's brief in the case:
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

Thanks for reading the column.

Best,

Marc Fisher



Mr. Fisher has sent me a 21 page legal brief outlining the plaintiff's causes of action (more accurately, their supplemental brief in support of Summary Judgment). I find curious what Mr. Fisher considers relevant, and what is not in this case. He has again misstated the record. He writes above that the plaintiffs argue that the very act of copying (not sharing) files, is, in fact, infringement. This is the brunt of his email, and, apparently, the focus of his December 30th report. Well, he is patently wrong. Directly from the brief:

"Defendant actually distributed Plaintiffs’ sound recordings and that Defendant made them available to others on a peer-to-peer file sharing network." Hmmmphhh.

The brief is riddled with references to the Kazaa network, and all those users that had access to the copyrighted files. Furthermore, the initial motion for Summary Judgment that I posted (#2) plainly states that it is the act of sharing on a network that constitutes the infringement.

It is late, I am tired, and Mr. Fisher was kind enough to promptly reply to my request. For that I am appreciative. I will delve more deeply into the brief tomorrow, and most probably, again email Mr. Fisher with the issue I have outlined above, and any other discrepancies between the brief(s) and his report. I want to doubly ascertain that he misrepresented the facts before I so accuse. At least there is an expressed interest in reporting the truth. I will post if I am able to persuade Mr. Fisher to augment his report.

 

[masak_aer]

"the act of transferring music from a legally-purchased CD is in and of itself illegal, even if the file is not being shared"....

Now this is something arrogant move by the recording industries lawyer if i may say. Ripping your music to your harddrive could mean it is illegal. Tell me if i am wrong. If this is the case, then the consumers have to fight for it. Anyway, i think the artists need to be compensated more than what they are making right now (this is for another discussion).

 

[Johnd]

"the act of transferring music from a legally-purchased CD is in and of itself illegal, even if the file is not being shared"....

Who's quote is that, and where is it from? There is no reference.

Oh. Nevermind. Next time masak_aer, please help an old man out and reference your quotations.

That is the reporter's (Mr. Fisher) statement, not the plaintiffs!

 

[jinjuku]

"the act of transferring music from a legally-purchased CD is in and of itself illegal, even if the file is not being shared"....

Now this is something arrogant move by the recording industries lawyer if i may say. Ripping your music to your harddrive could mean it is illegal. Tell me if i am wrong. If this is the case, then the consumers have to fight for it. Anyway, i think the artists need to be compensated more than what they are making right now (this is for another discussion).

The issue at hand is this:

The brief says nothing close to 'the act of transferring music from a legally-purchased CD is in and of itself illegal, even if the file is not being shared'. Does anyone here know where that quote came from?

The pleadings have everything to do with copyrighted songs be re-distributed.

People are up in arms over absolutely nothing. It's a well established legal precedent that copying your CD's to another medium is a protected use. Look at the millions upon millions of MP3 players out there.

 

[Johnd]

Just think about it for a second, anyway.

How would the RIAA know that this man (or anyone) has "2000" MP3s ripped from legally owned CDs?

The plaintiffs hired MediaSentry to investigate the illegal distribution of copyrighted work...well within their rights. This is especially true given the nature of Kazaa, which keeps no download records...the only way to get them is from the downloader, the uploader, or real time investigation. This may freak some out into that realm of A Brave New World...not even close. You want it? Pay for it. You want to subscribe to networks that illegally distribute copyrighted work, and then you want to download, and then you don't want to pay (like the rest of us)? Prepare your pocketbook, because if this is the manner in which you conduct yourself, you may pay very dearly for those free songs. Abide by the law, that is all that is requested.

 

[masak_aer]

Sorry JohnD, i inadvertently deleted the quote source. However, since you brought it up to the reporter's attention and he answered to you specifically, that means he knew what he was writing in his email to you. Either it is true or not, that particular quote really disturbs me.

 

[masak_aer]

Well, here it is:



Thanks for your note. Yes, the industry found the Howells by searching for computers that were sharing files through Kazaa. But that's not relevant to the column I wrote. The news here is the novel argument that the industry lawyer makes in his brief. In this case, the defendant claimed he had no idea he was sharing files, but that's irrelevant to the argument advanced by the recording companies' lawyer, who makes the case that the act of transferring music from a legally-purchased CD is in and of itself illegal, even if the file is not being shared.
Here's a link to the recording industry's brief in the case:
http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDF.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_071207RIAASupplementalBrief

Thanks for reading the column.

Best,

Marc Fisher



Mr. Fisher has sent me a 21 page legal brief outlining the plaintiff's causes of action (more accurately, their supplemental brief in support of Summary Judgment). I find curious what Mr. Fisher considers relevant, and what is not in this case. He has again misstated the record. He writes above that the plaintiffs argue that the very act of copying (not sharing) files, is, in fact, infringement. This is the brunt of his email, and, apparently, the focus of his December 30th report. Well, he is patently wrong. Directly from the brief:

"Defendant actually distributed Plaintiffs’ sound recordings and that Defendant made them available to others on a peer-to-peer file sharing network." Hmmmphhh.

The brief is riddled with references to the Kazaa network, and all those users that had access to the copyrighted files. Furthermore, the initial motion for Summary Judgment that I posted (#2) plainly states that it is the act of sharing on a network that constitutes the infringement.

It is late, I am tired, and Mr. Fisher was kind enough to promptly reply to my request. For that I am appreciative. I will delve more deeply into the brief tomorrow, and most probably, again email Mr. Fisher with the issue I have outlined above, and any other discrepancies between the brief(s) and his report. I want to doubly ascertain that he misrepresented the facts before I so accuse. At least there is an expressed interest in reporting the truth. I will post if I am able to persuade Mr. Fisher to augment his report.

JohnD, that's where i get the quote. Sorry for the confusion earlier.

 

[Johnd]

Sorry JohnD, i inadvertently deleted the quote source. However, since you brought it up to the reporter's attention and he answered to you specifically, that means he knew what he was writing in his email to you. Either it is true or not, that particular quote really disturbs me.

Me too. But that's why I instigated this little correction undertaking...to get the TRUTH out, rather than all this misinformation that's been floating out there on the evil RIAA.

Yes, that was what Mr. Fisher wrote to me in his email...but he is patently wrong. Nowhere do the plaintiffs pray for such relief: not in their original motion for Summary Judgment, nor in their supplemental brief. Yet this Washington Post writer declares that they have "made such a case." Convenient choice of words? Yes. Because I think he already knows that he cannot write that they claimed or argued such a thing...they have not.

I plan on emailing Mr. Fisher with a repeated request to augment his December 30th story. The very crux of his report is inaccurate...I have not seen the plaintiffs declaring infringement by the simple act of copying for personal use (no distribution, no networking, no filesharing, etc.). Mr. Fisher is just wrong on this whole story, and I expect a retraction, or I will go to the editor.

 

[Johnd]

JohnD, that's where i get the quote. Sorry for the confusion earlier.

Thanks masak_aer. I found the source last night. I was a little punch reading all those legal briefs, and I thought that was the source. I supplied the email, so I ought to have known that the quote came from the email that I supplied (on any other day...last night I was just beat). But thanks for the clarification.

 

[WndrBr3d]

I believe the problem here is people in general have devalued entertainment content such as music and movies BECAUSE it's so widely pirated. You can think of it like a currency, if it's easily obtainable for free, why would it hold any value?

I personally purchase all my music while still looking for a good price. There are a couple used CD stores here in San Diego I hit up monthly to pick out any gems. And of course when I get home I rip them to my NAS for use throughout my home via Media Centers or my Wife's Laptop.

Everyone wants something for nothing

 

[Johnd]

I believe the problem here is people in general have devalued entertainment content such as music and movies BECAUSE it's so widely pirated.

Yes. Some people. Some people that intentionally violate the law. The rest of us buy our material, and make no qualms about it.

 

[masak_aer]

I always think there's no subsitute word for illegal downloading music/movies except for stealing. That is not the question here. Now let us know how Washington Post react to this after you point this out to them JohnD.

 

[mikeyj92]

It seems that Marc Fisher just ran with this one sentence from the brief, (page 15, line 16-18):

Once Defendant converted Plaintiffs’ recording into the compressed .mp3 format and they are in his shared folder, they are no longer the authorized copies distributed by Plaintiffs.

Now, is this statement to be understood as general as it sounds? That anyone who rips tracks and stores them in ANY shared folder (I know for my 2 PC's I have a "shared folder") it is illegal? Or is this only referring to a folder "shared" within the context of some P2P network software?

Clarification seems to be needed on this point. If it is as general as it sounds, does Mr. Fisher have a point here?