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

[Johnd]

Linky? 54321

mikeyj92 posted the link above jinjuku.

I'll tell ya, the net is swarming with news of this correction, most probably because so many blindly ran with the misinformation immediately after the story ran. Here's a CNET story on the correction of the untrue story (must be a slow news day, or other media likes pointing out other's mistakes) that spread like wildfire...it's all over the place!

http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9843939-7.html?tag=nefd.top

I'm going to write a letter to the editor, part thanks, part it's not enough, but I won't be able to get to it til tomorrow. Thanks to all for the support. This news is especially relevant here at Audioholics...we don't have to love the RIAA, but let us understand they are only seeking to protect copyyright interests here.

 

[Johnd]

Irony of ironies.

On the CNET page I posted above, the author is Greg Sandoval, a former Post writer, so maybe he has an axe to grind (do ya think?), but he must have a bigger hangover than majorloser (who's been amiss since the game ), and a much bigger ego.

Firstly, his page reads January 7. Talk about an unscrupulous writer. The correction did not even come out until the 8th (I have an email from Mr. Fisher on Monday morning the 7th apologizing for the way I "felt" (I did not know reporters were so emotional ). I've been following the story, and this case for that matter rather closely. All information I have shows the correction was made on the 8th, not the 7th. I stopped attempting to persuade Mr. Fisher Monday morning, and promptly complained to the editor (Monday morning), and forwarded a copy of that complaint to Mr. Fisher.

Secondly, Sandoval writes the correction was made on Saturday. Not possible and untrue.

Thirdly, Sandoval writes that the correction was made on Saturday, more than a week after the story printed. But the story was printed that week Sunday. Only in the bizarro world is Sunday to Saturday "more than a week" (nevermind that the correction was not made on Saturday).

So the caveat on the caveat (as in the story on the story): BE SCRUPULOUS WITH ALL THE INFORMATION OUT THERE! Whether it's CNET or The Washington Post, the words are often riddled with mistakes! Get your information from several credible sources.

 

[jinjuku]

NPR Interviews Marc Fisher

Check it out (you need realplayer, yuk!).

 

[Johnd]

Latest update:

It seems Mr. Howell has failed to produce his requisite brief by the court ordered deadline of January 11. This could turn out to be very bad for Mr. Howell...when a federal magistrate wants something, he usually gets it one way or another.

However, in a surprising development, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has supplied the court with its' own amicus curiae brief. Whether or not the court accepts this brief remains to be seen, as I don't believe they were ever invited to respond.

The Frontier's brief takes the novel position that distribution requires consummation. That is, that the plaintiffs are thereby required to prove actual downloads of the illegal uploads in order to prove infringement (via distribution).

Hmmmppph. Attorneys.

In the not so common sense world of litigation, all is not so simple. But last time I checked, if I were to hand out 1,000 circulars (door to door or face to face, it does not matter) offering free pizza, whether or not those circulars were read is irrelevant...the mere act act of handing out the 1,000 circulars constitutes the act of distribution...not the reading. This brief doesn't pass the smell test, and I'll be surprised if it is accepted by the court.

http://www.ilrweb.com/viewILRPDFfull.asp?filename=atlantic_howell_080111AmicusBriefOpposSumJudgMot

 

[stratman]

And the beat goes on.