OT: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

[The Ghost In The Machine]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Shafranski
<me@privacy.net>
wrote
on Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:00:49 -0000
<5u4im5F1f7vppU1@mid.individual.net>:
> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>> (from
>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entert...cording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>>
>>
>> "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>>
>> Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>>
>> SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
>> intensified its fight against illicit downloading, saying it is illegal
>> for someone to transfer music from a CD onto a computer.
>>
>> As part of the industry's ongoing legal effort against Jeffery Howell, a
>> Scottsdale, Ariz., resident accused of sharing nearly 2,000 songs,
>> industry officials said even legally owned discs should not be copied onto
>> one's computer, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
>>
> Complete hogwash.
>

No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate
ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a
high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.

Presumably the latter is what Jeff Howell is guilty of.

However, the copying of the disc could be construed as
a violation, as both are physical copies -- metaphysical
copies being generally impossible. It really depends on
how the law is worded, after all, and the law is probably
screwed up anyway.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Windows. Multi-platform(1), multi-tasking(1), multi-user(1).
(1) if one defines "multi" as "exactly one".

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

 

[Martha Adams]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:%234NrL%23gTIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Gilgamesh wrote:
>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> (from
>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entert...cording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>>>
>>> Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>>>
>>> SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let
>> you make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media.
>> (Unfortunately that is not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
>>
>>> Just thought you'd like to know....
>>>
>>> jim
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to
> get around the law.
> Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie
> industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good
> because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is
> a pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.
> Sounds like greed to me.
> caver1

I think they're trying to eliminate that formal nuisance
called "probable cause," which is disliked in Washington.
To do away with it, you have to start somewhere. Is
this it?

Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2008 Jan 3]

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Martha Adams wrote:
>
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:%234NrL%23gTIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Gilgamesh wrote:
>>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>>> (from
>>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entert...cording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>>>>
>>>> Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>>>>
>>>> SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
>>>
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let
>>> you make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately
>>> that is not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
>>>
>>>> Just thought you'd like to know....
>>>>
>>>> jim
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to
>> get around the law.
>> Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie
>> industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good
>> because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is
>> a pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.
>> Sounds like greed to me.
>> caver1
>
> I think they're trying to eliminate that formal nuisance
> called "probable cause," which is disliked in Washington.
> To do away with it, you have to start somewhere. Is
> this it?
>
> Cheers -- Martha Adams [cola 2008 Jan 3]
>
>



That's true. Its a real nuisance to the RIAA.
But even probable cause only gives the right to
obtain a warrant or uder the right circumstances
to do a search. It does not give the right to find
someone guilty in its own right.
caver1

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Ray Shafranski
> <me@privacy.net>
> wrote
> on Thu, 3 Jan 2008 17:00:49 -0000
> <5u4im5F1f7vppU1@mid.individual.net>:
>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> (from
>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entert...cording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>>>
>>> Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>>>
>>> SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
>>> intensified its fight against illicit downloading, saying it is illegal
>>> for someone to transfer music from a CD onto a computer.
>>>
>>> As part of the industry's ongoing legal effort against Jeffery Howell, a
>>> Scottsdale, Ariz., resident accused of sharing nearly 2,000 songs,
>>> industry officials said even legally owned discs should not be copied onto
>>> one's computer, The Washington Post reported Sunday.
>>>
>> Complete hogwash.
>>
>
> No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate
> ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a
> high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.
>
> Presumably the latter is what Jeff Howell is guilty of.
>
> However, the copying of the disc could be construed as
> a violation, as both are physical copies -- metaphysical
> copies being generally impossible. It really depends on
> how the law is worded, after all, and the law is probably
> screwed up anyway.
>



They are not suing him for the copies. Probably
because they couldn't win that one.
He is being sued for sharing which under those
circumstances could be wrong.
I said could be because he hasn't been found
guilty yet.
But just because you could have or might have is
not did.
They should still have to prove that he did.
The butler did it. But you still have to prove
that he did to convict him. Proving that he could
have is not good enough.
caver1

 

[Mark R. Cusumano]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:#4NrL#gTIHA.536@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Gilgamesh wrote:
>> "jim" <jim@home.net> wrote in message
>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>> (from
>>> http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entert...cording_industry_ups_ante_for_downloads/1429/)
>>>
>>>
>>> "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>>>
>>> Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>>>
>>> SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let you
>> make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately that
>> is not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
>>
>>> Just thought you'd like to know....
>>>
>>> jim
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> That's why they want DRM and everything that goes with it. A way to get
> around the law.
> Saw an interview yesterday with one of the head people of the movie
> industry(can't remember his name). He said that fair use is no good
> because you cannot know ahead of time if the person making the copy is a
> pirate or not. So then there should be no legal way to make copies.
> Sounds like greed to me.
> caver1


I wonder if he is a member of the NRA. I wonder how that rationale would go
with guns. "You cannot know ahead of time id the person buying a gun is a
murderer or no. So then there should be no legal way to buy guns". Hmm,
I can't see that flying well Actually if you want to stop music piracy
just make the sale of music itself a felony!

--
Mark R. Cusumano
Skype Name: mark.cusumano
Web: http://The-Padded-Cell.spaces.live.com

 

[Darth Chaos]

On Jan 3, 8:02 am, "Tom Lake" <toml_12...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Stephan Rose" <nospam.no...@screwspammers.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d7KdnR9tCdCMROHanZ2dnUVZ8vCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>
> > On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:38:51 -0500, jim wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> Just thought you'd like to know....
>
> > I wonder how much they like me stripping region coding and CSS encryption
> > from my DVDs so that I can watch them from my Hard Drives and protect the
> > physical DVDs. =)
>
> Watch out or they'll put the MI5 on your trail! Just ask that guy who
> posts all over the place. 8^)
>
> Tom Lake

I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or
some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about
reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my
hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by
making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is
still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-
fascist gonna tell me otherwise.

 

[Red Henk]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

In article <ZD6fj.11867$tK5.8119@trndny03>,
"Beamguy" <nobody@noplace.com> wrote:

> This appears to be a new policy of the RIAA - and they have not yet had time
> to update their website. They go into more detail
> elsewhere, but here it is from straight from their webpages...
>
> http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
>
> 11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?
>
> Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for
> their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music
> they bought legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading
> music illegally rob the people who created that music
> of compensation for their work. When record companies are deprived of
> critical revenue, they are forced to lay off employees, drop
> artists from their rosters, and sign fewer bands. That's bad news for the
> music industry, but ultimately bad news for fans as well.
> We all benefit from a vibrant music industry committed to nurturing the next
> generation of talent.

This sentence make me laugh--
"But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading
> music illegally rob the people who created that music
> of compensation for their work."

The record labels are not creators. The true creators are the artists,
and they normally get very little from the price, that the person who
buys the DC, pays. Does anyone know what the percentage breakdown of how
the revenue made from sale of a record, is distributed. I'll bet that
the artist gets no more than 5% tops and that get eaten up expenses that
charged to the artist. It's only the superstar artists who actually make
any money on sales of records.

 

[bb]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in message
news:uukv45-0m8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate
> ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a
> high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.

And from the Judge in the Jammie Thomas case, simply making the songs
*available* - even if nobody downloaded any - is illegal.

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.tg00suus7038.net> wrote in
> message news:uukv45-0m8.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> No, just confusion of the issue. One cannot equate
>> ripping songs for personal use with putting them on a
>> high-bandwidth server and advertising their availability.
>
> And from the Judge in the Jammie Thomas case, simply making the songs
> *available* - even if nobody downloaded any - is illegal.
>


If you look at the transcript of the case here it
might surprise you. The RIAA is arguing that
Jeffery Howell actually ripped his cds to mp3s on
his computer to share with his wife. Yes they are
in a share folder.
Imagine that sharing with his wife. I don't
understand I always charge my wife to listen to my
music. How else do you think I get my drinking money?
The nerve of the man.
Don't believe me? Look it up.
caver1

 

[bb]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you look at the transcript of the case here it might surprise you.

Got a link to that? I found the UPI & WP articles and the engadet updates,
but not the transcript.

 

[bb]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might surprise
> you.

found 'em:

Jury Instructions found here:
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html

And the debate over it:
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel

<quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of making
available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright owner's
exclusive copyright."

The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is suing
Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared drive. It's
not clear whether that is over a home network or the bigger internet or to
who.

If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA really
has driven over a cliff.

 

[bb]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> If you look at the transcript of the case here it might surprise you. The
> RIAA is arguing that Jeffery Howell actually ripped his cds to mp3s on his
> computer to share with his wife. Yes they are in a share folder.

ok, my last post on this topic. (maybe!)

Caver1, I was confused when you said "Transcript of the case" - that's the
Jammie Thomas case as the Howell case has not yet gone to court. What I
think you meant was the Howell Plaintiff's Brief - there is a link to that
here:

http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/archives/2007/12/unbelievably_st_1.html

The huge word here is "KaZaA," as in the KaZaA shared folder. It not really
about the ripping CDs to MP3s, it's about the sharing to the world those
songs. If Howell really put 2000+ songs on the net with KaZaA, I think he's
toast.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

<nessuno@wigner.berkeley.edu> wrote in message
news:3abaa83f-c97c-45af-beac-933b59c29c60@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 3, 5:34 am, "Gilgamesh" <gilgam...@spam.me.not> wrote:
>> "jim" <j...@home.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:tH4fj.60869$K27.48242@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>>
>> > (from
>> >http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Entertainment/2007/12/30/recording_indus...)
>>
>> > "Recording industry ups ante for downloads
>>
>> > Published: Dec. 30, 2007 at 3:29 PM
>>
>> > SCOTTSDALE, Ariz., Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The U.S. recording industry has
>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>> I thought US copy right law had something called "Fair Use" that let you
>> make backup copies of legitimatly purchased media. (Unfortunately that
>> is
>> not part of Australian copyright law :-( )
>
> Yes, but I thought I had read somewhere that region coding is illegal
> in Australia (that is, the dvd readers sold there play anything,
> regardless of region).

That's correct. That allows us to buy DVDs from any region in the world and
play them in our local units.
But region coding is not the same as making a backup copy.

>

 

[Anteaus]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

"Gilgamesh" wrote:


> That's correct. That allows us to buy DVDs from any region in the world and
> play them in our local units.

....although in areas with region-coding, particularly those with a region
other than one, it creates a situation where the consumer is actually
better-off downloading a pirate DivX/XViD copy than buying a genuine DVD one.
Perhaps the Fat Cats have yet to realise that to some extent they are
creating the piracy problem by way of their own malpractices.

Makes me wonder if I could get away with selling software which was designed
to stop working if the computer's locale was changed, such that I could
demand a repayment of royalties from anyone who emigrated.

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you look at the transcript of the {Jammie?} case here it might
>> surprise you.
>
> found 'em:
>
> Jury Instructions found here:
> http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2007/10/jury-instructions-in-virgin-v-thomas.html
>
>
> And the debate over it:
> http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...ruction-as-capitol-v-thomas-wraps-up.html?rel
>
>
> <quote>Judge Davis amended the instruction to say that the "act of
> making available for electronic distribution... violates the copyright
> owner's exclusive copyright."
>
> The current case is a extension of that instruction. The RIAA is suing
> Jeffery Howell over making ripped MP3s available on a shared drive.
> It's not clear whether that is over a home network or the bigger
> internet or to who.
>
> If, as you say, it's over a home network and with his wife - the RIAA
> really has driven over a cliff.
>
>



This case against Jeffery Howell was against him
sharing over the internet. Howell was wrong.
In the RIAA's case the bring up sharing with his
wife and making your own copies for your own use
and state that they believe that they they are
also illegal but only sue him for what they know
they can win.
Howell was definitely wrong. But if you look at
the rest of the statements you can see where the
RIAA is heading.
Look at the light that the Motley fool sheds an
the recording industry.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2008/01/02/were-all-thieves-to-the-riaa.aspx
caver1

 

[HeyBub]

Darth Chaos wrote:
>
> I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or
> some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about
> reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my
> hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by
> making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is
> still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-
> fascist gonna tell me otherwise.

You can't make copies in jail. Or bankrupt.

You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song or
program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may legally access
this content only under the terms of a contract willingly entered between
you and the creator (or his agent).

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

bb wrote:
> "caver1" <caver@inthemud.com> wrote in message
> news:OZmKzGoTIHA.4696@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> If you look at the transcript of the case here it might surprise you.
>> The RIAA is arguing that Jeffery Howell actually ripped his cds to
>> mp3s on his computer to share with his wife. Yes they are in a share
>> folder.
>
> ok, my last post on this topic. (maybe!)
>
> Caver1, I was confused when you said "Transcript of the case" - that's
> the Jammie Thomas case as the Howell case has not yet gone to court.
> What I think you meant was the Howell Plaintiff's Brief - there is a
> link to that here:
>
> http://www.tenreasonswhy.com/weblog/archives/2007/12/unbelievably_st_1.html
>
> The huge word here is "KaZaA," as in the KaZaA shared folder. It not
> really about the ripping CDs to MP3s, it's about the sharing to the
> world those songs. If Howell really put 2000+ songs on the net with
> KaZaA, I think he's toast.



I agree that I used the wrong point to insert
transcript. I was thinking of all legal papers
filed as part of the case. Once the trial is over
then the briefs are part of the transcript.
Yes Howell is toast. But as I said earlier look at
the whole argument of the RIAA and see where they
are heading.
Plus it has already gone to trail. Aug.24. 2007
RIAA was rewarded Summary judgment against Howell
in Arizona Federal court.
caver1

 

[caver1]

Re: RIAA: It's 'Illegal' to Rip Your Own CDs to Your Own Computer

Anteaus wrote:
> "Gilgamesh" wrote:
>
>
>> That's correct. That allows us to buy DVDs from any region in the world and
>> play them in our local units.
>
> ...although in areas with region-coding, particularly those with a region
> other than one, it creates a situation where the consumer is actually
> better-off downloading a pirate DivX/XViD copy than buying a genuine DVD one.
> Perhaps the Fat Cats have yet to realise that to some extent they are
> creating the piracy problem by way of their own malpractices.
>
> Makes me wonder if I could get away with selling software which was designed
> to stop working if the computer's locale was changed, such that I could
> demand a repayment of royalties from anyone who emigrated.
>
>
>


The "Fat Cats" ,as you call them, are litigating a
loosing battle over an industry that will die
unless it changes its business model. But they
would rather fight than change.
caver1

 

[caver1]

HeyBub wrote:
> Darth Chaos wrote:
>> I don't care if he's MI5, CIA, Mossad, ISI, the Emperor's Hand, or
>> some reptilian humanoid from the planrt Zartan (just kidding about
>> reptilian himanoids). I own my CDs and DVDs. I bought them with my
>> hard earned money, and dammit, I'm gonna protect my investments by
>> making back-up copies for my own personal use. As long as there is
>> still a Constitution and a Bill of Rights, ain't no corporate neo-
>> fascist gonna tell me otherwise.
>
> You can't make copies in jail. Or bankrupt.
>
> You bought the medium, you did not but unfettered rights to the
> intellectual, creative, contents of the media. Ownership of the song or
> program or whatever's ON the media reside elsewhere. You may legally access
> this content only under the terms of a contract willingly entered between
> you and the creator (or his agent).
>
>


There is no contract when you buy music or a
movie. There is only law covering what you can and
cannot do. The Media industry wants to take away
the fair use rights the law has given.
There are contracts with software but even those
cannot take away certain rights that the law has
granted.
caver1

 

[jim]

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

(from http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9839897-7.html?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.