UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE..... - Linux

This is a discussion on UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE..... - Linux ; (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-983...l?tag=nefd.top ) January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate Posted by Greg Sandoval An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

  1. UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-983...l?tag=nefd.top )

    January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
    RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
    Posted by Greg Sandoval

    An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
    sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
    that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a
    computer.

    Here was a golden opportunity for Cary Sherman to declare once and for all
    that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that,
    saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements.
    National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post
    columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association
    of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What
    was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to making a mistake and
    has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to Sherman, Fisher has misled
    consumers.

    Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his
    story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court
    document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of illegal
    file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the lobbying
    group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to their
    computers.

    Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
    Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people
    as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
    repeated Fisher's claims.

    But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes cited
    by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief
    that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and
    violate the law.

    "The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part
    of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during
    the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about
    putting them into a shared folder."

    The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's
    story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over
    again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music
    files via peer-to-peer networks.

    Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to
    testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an
    earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself,
    I suppose we can say he stole a song."

    This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.

    "The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,"
    Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing.
    It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a
    question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about
    ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position
    of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

    Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's
    quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.

    Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had he
    spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.

    Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and
    left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned the
    call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back to get
    the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until nine days
    later.

    It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to be
    quoted--especially when they're slamming them.

    Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to
    statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that the
    group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.

    But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the
    RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA
    says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any
    problems.

    "They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns if
    you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'" Fisher
    said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that it's a
    legal right."

    "Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against
    someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single
    claim has ever been made."

    In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more
    than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably
    should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when
    someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case
    scenarios.

    Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend
    everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued?
    If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have to
    explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He
    would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.

    If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media
    organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in
    this case.

    Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.



  2. *SPAM* : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....




  3. Re: *SPAM* : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....


    "Bob I" wrote in message
    news:Oa$9esuTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >
    >


    "Bob" you are a coward. You post nothing to help individuals or the group
    as a whole.

    May your life and world befilled with people just like you.

    jim



  4. Re: *SPAM* : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    "jim" wrote in message
    news:sftfj.61571$K27.268@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
    >
    > "Bob I" wrote in message
    > news:Oa$9esuTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    > >
    > >

    >
    > "Bob" you are a coward. You post nothing to help individuals or the

    group
    > as a whole.
    >
    > May your life and world befilled with people just like you.
    >
    > jim
    >
    >

    Don't be too hard on him - he was so shocked he was speechless!

    Mrs T



  5. Re: *SPAM* : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....



    jim wrote:

    > "Bob I" wrote in message
    > news:Oa$9esuTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >
    >>

    >
    > "Bob" you are a coward. You post nothing to help individuals or the group
    > as a whole.
    >
    > May your life and world befilled with people just like you.
    >
    > jim
    >


    Thankfully the rest of us are not so clueless as you are. And may your
    world be also filled with people like me. It would be in your best
    interests.


  6. RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....


    "Bob I" wrote in message
    news:O6W$GVvTIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >
    >
    > jim wrote:
    >
    >> "Bob I" wrote in message
    >> news:Oa$9esuTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >>>

    >>
    >> "Bob" you are a coward. You post nothing to help individuals or the
    >> group as a whole.
    >>
    >> May your life and world befilled with people just like you.
    >>
    >> jim

    >
    > Thankfully the rest of us are not so clueless as you are. And may your
    > world be also filled with people like me. It would be in your best
    > interests.


    Yes "Bob". We need you to protect us from retractions like the one
    below....

    (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-983...l?tag=nefd.top )

    January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
    RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
    Posted by Greg Sandoval

    An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
    sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
    that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a
    computer.

    Here was a golden opportunity for Cary Sherman to declare once and for all
    that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that,
    saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements.
    National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post
    columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association
    of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What
    was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to making a mistake and
    has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to Sherman, Fisher has misled
    consumers.

    Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his
    story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court
    document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of illegal
    file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the lobbying
    group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to their
    computers.

    Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
    Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of people
    as criminals. The story became national news and scores of publications
    repeated Fisher's claims.

    But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes cited
    by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in the brief
    that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized copies" and
    violate the law.

    "The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the part
    of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said during
    the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence about
    putting them into a shared folder."

    The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with Fisher's
    story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over and over
    again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution of music
    files via peer-to-peer networks.

    Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to
    testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an
    earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself,
    I suppose we can say he stole a song."

    This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.

    "The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,"
    Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing.
    It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a
    question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about
    ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position
    of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

    Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's
    quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.

    Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had he
    spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.

    Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and
    left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned the
    call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back to get
    the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until nine days
    later.

    It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to be
    quoted--especially when they're slamming them.

    Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to
    statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that the
    group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.

    But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the
    RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA
    says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any
    problems.

    "They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns if
    you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'" Fisher
    said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that it's a
    legal right."

    "Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against
    someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single
    claim has ever been made."

    In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more
    than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably
    should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when
    someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case
    scenarios.

    Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend
    everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued?
    If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have to
    explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He
    would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.

    If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media
    organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in
    this case.

    Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.




  7. Re: RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....



    jim wrote:
    > "Bob I" wrote in message
    > news:O6W$GVvTIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >
    >>
    >>jim wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>"Bob I" wrote in message
    >>>news:Oa$9esuTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>"Bob" you are a coward. You post nothing to help individuals or the
    >>>group as a whole.
    >>>
    >>>May your life and world befilled with people just like you.
    >>>
    >>>jim

    >>
    >>Thankfully the rest of us are not so clueless as you are. And may your
    >>world be also filled with people like me. It would be in your best
    >>interests.

    >
    >
    > Yes "Bob". We need you to protect us from retractions like the one
    > below....
    >


    If a certain clueless individual didn't crosspost the off topic SPAM in
    the first place, the entire issue is moot. I trust we will hear no more
    of this drivel in this group.


  8. Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    "jim" wrote in message
    news:5qrfj.61516$K27.43831@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
    > (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-983...l?tag=nefd.top )
    >
    > January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
    > RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
    > Posted by Greg Sandoval
    >


    >
    > Here was a golden opportunity for Cary Sherman to declare once and for all
    > that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that,
    > saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements.


    That's convenient. What's sweeping about it. Either it is legal or it
    isn't.


    > testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an
    > earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for
    > himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."
    >
    > This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.
    >
    > "The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,"
    > Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing.
    > It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was
    > a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about
    > ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the
    > position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."


    Well, of course its not, unless of course it is convenient at a particular
    time to enable the RIAA to swindle a Judge and/or jury. But when it makes
    the RIAA look bad, then no, its not their position.

    Did the Washington Post guy screw up? Maybe. Does the RIAA change its
    position on issues when it suits them? No question.



  9. Re: RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....


    "Bob I" wrote in message
    news:uDUvvrvTIHA.5264@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
    >
    >
    > jim wrote:
    >> "Bob I" wrote in message
    >> news:O6W$GVvTIHA.1212@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
    >>
    >>>
    >>>jim wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>"Bob I" wrote in message
    >>>>news:Oa$9esuTIHA.4272@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"Bob" you are a coward. You post nothing to help individuals or the
    >>>>group as a whole.
    >>>>
    >>>>May your life and world befilled with people just like you.
    >>>>
    >>>>jim
    >>>
    >>>Thankfully the rest of us are not so clueless as you are. And may your
    >>>world be also filled with people like me. It would be in your best
    >>>interests.

    >>
    >>
    >> Yes "Bob". We need you to protect us from retractions like the one
    >> below....
    >>

    >
    > If a certain clueless individual didn't crosspost the off topic SPAM in
    > the first place, the entire issue is moot. I trust we will hear no more of
    > this drivel in this group.


    Perhaps you should learn what SPAM is... According to the Wikipedia entry
    at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newsgroup_spam, "Usenet convention defines
    spamming as excessive multiple posting, that is, the repeated posting of a
    message (or substantially similar messages). "

    Please note that Usenet SPAM is NOT defined as "anything Bob doesn't like or
    is not interested in".

    ALL of the articles that I have posted have bearing on the vast majority of
    the newsgroup readers' lives. In my experience, anything of interest to and
    anything that directly affects the readers of any newsgroup is not only
    allowable but is greatly appreciated by the vast majority of the readers of
    the newsgroup who are not trolls and do not suffer from "Usenet Cop
    Syndrome".

    I've met people like you "Bob". Let me summarize "Bob" for you......

    "Bob" here is most likely a loner; someone who feels a loss of control in
    "his" life. He has most likely not acheived anthing even remotely near what
    he aspires to and is a very frustrated individual. "Bob" most likely does
    not have a very active social life and feels ostracized by social circles
    that he aspires to. "Bob" most likely is more comfortable wich machines
    than with people. "Bob" most likely does not have many true friends at work
    and is the frequent subject of unflattering discussions at his place of
    employment. If "Bob" is in a comitted relationship, he most likely feels
    abused and trapped in a love-less hell of his own making - having accepted
    anyone that he could join with - because he felt he could do no better.

    Obviously "Bob" feels the need to assert himself in, most likely, the only
    way that he can - by assuming the role of Usenet policeman.

    I feel sorry for you "Bob".

    jim



  10. Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    QWERTY wrote:

    > But when it makes the RIAA look bad, then no, its not their position.


    I thought part of the point of the RIAA was to look bad in the sense of
    taking the heat off its Principals. Thus when the RIAA beats up on an 87
    year old grandmother or 10 year old kid, Sony et al can say "wot me?"

  11. Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    "Sid Elbow" wrote in message
    news:4f4af$477ea8a6$4c0aada1$29805@TEKSAVVY.COM...
    > I thought part of the point of the RIAA was to look bad in the sense of
    > taking the heat off its Principals. Thus when the RIAA beats up on an 87
    > year old grandmother or 10 year old kid, Sony et al can say "wot me?"



    That's what I thought as well, but the recent back-pedaling by the RIAA
    seems to indicate that even they have limits. Why else would they come out
    and say that testimony given by one of their key witnesses in a case they
    won was wrong?

    Either way, it will be interesting to see what Jammie's lawyers do with this
    little bit of information, if anything.



  12. Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 09:30:27 -0500, jim wrote:

    > "The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the
    > part of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said
    > during the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence
    > about putting them into a shared folder."
    >
    > The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with
    > Fisher's story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over
    > and over again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution
    > of music files via peer-to-peer networks.



    What difference does it make if they're in a Shared folder or not? I've
    never had to seed any of my torrents from a Shared folder. I only need
    to use a Shared folder when I'm moving files from one of my computers to
    the other on my home network.


  13. Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    Thanks jim! Unlike "Bob" I appreciated that update, as I had not heard of
    this update to what I thought was the RIAA being completely insane!



    "jim" wrote in message
    news:5qrfj.61516$K27.43831@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
    > (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-983...l?tag=nefd.top )
    >
    > January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
    > RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
    > Posted by Greg Sandoval
    >
    > An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
    > sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
    > that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a
    > computer.
    >
    > Here was a golden opportunity for Cary Sherman to declare once and for all
    > that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of that,
    > saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping statements.
    > National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the
    > Post columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry
    > Association of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to
    > debate. What was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to admit to
    > making a mistake and has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according to
    > Sherman, Fisher has misled consumers.
    >
    > Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart his
    > story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a court
    > document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA of
    > illegal file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that the
    > lobbying group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs to
    > their computers.
    >
    > Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
    > Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of
    > people as criminals. The story became national news and scores of
    > publications repeated Fisher's claims.
    >
    > But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes
    > cited by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in
    > the brief that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are "unauthorized
    > copies" and violate the law.
    >
    > "The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the
    > part of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said
    > during the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the sentence
    > about putting them into a shared folder."
    >
    > The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with
    > Fisher's story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says over
    > and over again what it considers to be illegal activity: the distribution
    > of music files via peer-to-peer networks.
    >
    > Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on to
    > testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said during an
    > earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song for
    > himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."
    >
    > This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.
    >
    > "The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,"
    > Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started appearing.
    > It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was
    > a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about
    > ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the
    > position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."
    >
    > Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's
    > quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.
    >
    > Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had
    > he spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.
    >
    > Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once and
    > left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman returned
    > the call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never called back
    > to get the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't published until
    > nine days later.
    >
    > It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to
    > be quoted--especially when they're slamming them.
    >
    > Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to
    > statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that
    > the group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.
    >
    > But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the
    > RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA
    > says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any
    > problems.
    >
    > "They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns
    > if you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'"
    > Fisher said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say that
    > it's a legal right."
    >
    > "Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against
    > someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single
    > claim has ever been made."
    >
    > In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics more
    > than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who probably
    > should remember one of the first things they teach cub reporters: when
    > someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think of worst-case
    > scenarios.
    >
    > Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend
    > everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever sued?
    > If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher might have
    > to explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's legal brief. He
    > would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA comment.
    >
    > If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media
    > organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in
    > this case.
    >
    > Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.
    >
    >




  14. Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    Thank you for posting your thoughts!

    jim

    "John Q. Smith" wrote in message
    news:FfEfj.34968$db7.11602@newsfe12.phx...
    > Thanks jim! Unlike "Bob" I appreciated that update, as I had not heard of
    > this update to what I thought was the RIAA being completely insane!
    >
    >
    >
    > "jim" wrote in message
    > news:5qrfj.61516$K27.43831@bignews6.bellsouth.net. ..
    >> (from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-983...l?tag=nefd.top )
    >>
    >> January 3, 2008 9:26 PM PST
    >> RIAA shreds Washington Post story in debate
    >> Posted by Greg Sandoval
    >>
    >> An executive with the music industry's lobbying group engaged in a verbal
    >> sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges
    >> that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to
    >> a computer.
    >>
    >> Here was a golden opportunity for Cary Sherman to declare once and for
    >> all that copying CDs for personal use is lawful. He stopped short of
    >> that, saying that copyright law is too complex to make such sweeping
    >> statements. National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc
    >> Fisher, the Post columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording
    >> Industry Association of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill
    >> advised to debate. What was exposed was a reporter who doesn't want to
    >> admit to making a mistake and has dug his heels in. Meanwhile, according
    >> to Sherman, Fisher has misled consumers.
    >>
    >> Early in the debate, Fisher was on the defense as Sherman picked apart
    >> his story, which appeared on Sunday. In the piece Fisher quoted from a
    >> court document, filed in the case of an Arizona man accused by the RIAA
    >> of illegal file sharing. Fisher wrote that the quotes demonstrated that
    >> the lobbying group was now challenging the right of music fans to rip CDs
    >> to their computers.
    >>
    >> Copying CDs to a computer or an iPod is common all over the world and if
    >> Fisher's claims were correct, the RIAA would be painting millions of
    >> people as criminals. The story became national news and scores of
    >> publications repeated Fisher's claims.
    >>
    >> But as numerous bloggers and copyright experts have noted, the quotes
    >> cited by Fisher are incomplete. Fisher wrote that the RIAA had argued in
    >> the brief that MP3 files created from legally bought CDs are
    >> "unauthorized copies" and violate the law.
    >>
    >> "The Post picked up one sentence in a 21-page brief and then picked the
    >> part of the sentence about ripping CDs onto the computer," Sherman said
    >> during the radio show. "(The Post) simply ignored the part of the
    >> sentence about putting them into a shared folder."
    >>
    >> The "shared folder" omission is at the center of what's wrong with
    >> Fisher's story. Anyone who reads the brief can see that the RIAA says
    >> over and over again what it considers to be illegal activity: the
    >> distribution of music files via peer-to-peer networks.
    >>
    >> Fisher didn't address this issue during the debate. Instead he moved on
    >> to testimony given by Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, who said
    >> during an earlier court case: "when an individual makes a copy of a song
    >> for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song."
    >>
    >> This is when Sherman really went to work on Fisher's story.
    >>
    >> "The Sony person who (Fisher) relies on actually misspoke in that trial,"
    >> Sherman said. "I know because I asked her after stories started
    >> appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought
    >> that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a
    >> question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is
    >> not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the
    >> industry."
    >>
    >> Sherman said that other reporters and bloggers had called about Pariser's
    >> quotes and chose not to write about them after learning she had erred.
    >>
    >> Why wasn't Fisher offered this information? Well, he would have been had
    >> he spoken to anyone at the RIAA, Sherman said.
    >>
    >> Prior to writing the story Fisher called the RIAA for a statement once
    >> and left a message, according to Sherman. When the RIAA's spokesman
    >> returned the call two hours later, he missed Fisher. But Fisher never
    >> called back to get the RIAA's statement even though the story wasn't
    >> published until nine days later.
    >>
    >> It's customary for journalists to give the subject of a story a chance to
    >> be quoted--especially when they're slamming them.
    >>
    >> Again, Fisher declined to address Sherman's accusations. He moved on to
    >> statements that appear on the RIAA's Web site, which he claims show that
    >> the group considers copying music to a computer as unlawful.
    >>
    >> But Sherman suggested that Fisher was once again being selective with the
    >> RIAA's statements. Sherman showed the location on the site where the RIAA
    >> says that people can typically copy music for personal use without any
    >> problems.
    >>
    >> "They go on to equivocate and say, 'Well, usually it won't raise concerns
    >> if you go ahead and transfer legally obtained music to your computer,'"
    >> Fisher said during the debate, "but they won't go all the way and say
    >> that it's a legal right."
    >>
    >> "Not a single (legal) case has ever been brought (by the RIAA against
    >> someone for copying music for personal use)," Sherman said. "Not a single
    >> claim has ever been made."
    >>
    >> In the final analysis, this is really a story about journalism ethics
    >> more than it is about technology. Fisher is a respected journalist who
    >> probably should remember one of the first things they teach cub
    >> reporters: when someone challenges you over a story, it's smart to think
    >> of worst-case scenarios.
    >>
    >> Reporters are reminded to ask themselves whether they could defend
    >> everything they did during the reporting and writing process if ever
    >> sued? If the RIAA ever took the Post to court over the issue, Fisher
    >> might have to explain why he omitted important sections of the RIAA's
    >> legal brief. He would have to justify not trying harder to get RIAA
    >> comment.
    >>
    >> If a reporter's work doesn't stand up, the typical remedy at most media
    >> organizations is to issue a correction. That's what the Post should do in
    >> this case.
    >>
    >> Greg Sandoval is a former Washington Post staff writer.
    >>
    >>

    >
    >




  15. Re: UPDATE : RIAA Washington Post CD copy story was a LIE.....

    Sid Elbow wrote:

    > QWERTY wrote:
    >
    >> But when it makes the RIAA look bad, then no, its not their position.

    >
    > I thought part of the point of the RIAA was to look bad in the sense of
    > taking the heat off its Principals. Thus when the RIAA beats up on an 87
    > year old grandmother or 10 year old kid, Sony et al can say "wot me?"


    I believe SONY BMG is the biggest player in the recording industry in the
    USA and Canada, and probably elsewhere. Yet it was SONY that won a major
    case against Universal in 1984 for the right to manufacture Betamax VCRs.

    --
    Martin S.

+ Reply to Thread