Patterico's Pontifications

1/7/2008

Helen Thomas: Vindicated Again!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 12:24 am



Helen Thomas has been proved right — yet again!

Recall (how could you forget?) how she said that bloggers don’t have the standards and ethics of Big Media types like her.

Exhibit A: Dafydd at Big Lizards admits he got a post completely, 100% wrong:

It doesn’t often happen that Big Lizards is completely, utterly wrong in a post; but I’m pretty sure this is one of those rare times…

Well, there you go. Helen has been vindicated.

And I mean that most sincerely. But read on to see exactly what I mean by that.

Because — whoops! It appears Dafydd got it wrong because he foolishly trusted the accuracy of Big Media — namely, the Washington Post, which wrote a story that said:

[I]n an unusual case in which an Arizona recipient of an RIAA letter has fought back in court rather than write a check to avoid hefty legal fees, the industry is taking its argument against music sharing one step further: In legal documents in its federal case against Jeffrey Howell, a Scottsdale, Ariz., man who kept a collection of about 2,000 music recordings on his personal computer, the industry maintains that it is illegal for someone who has legally purchased a CD to transfer that music into his computer.

Jeez Louise! The RIAA says all that music I ripped for my iPod is illegally copied?

If you read the Washington Post story, you’ll think: it sure seems that way. The story goes on to drive home the point that RIAA is saying even a personal copy on your own computer is a violation:

The industry’s lawyer in the case, Ira Schwartz, argues in a brief filed earlier this month that the MP3 files Howell made on his computer from legally bought CDs are “unauthorized copies” of copyrighted recordings.

“I couldn’t believe it when I read that,” says Ray Beckerman, a New York lawyer who represents six clients who have been sued by the RIAA. “The basic principle in the law is that you have to distribute actual physical copies to be guilty of violating copyright. But recently, the industry has been going around saying that even a personal copy on your computer is a violation.”

RIAA’s hard-line position seems clear. Its Web site says: “If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.”

Dafydd, believing this was accurate because it appeared in one of the most elite of all Big Media publications, wrote a post about how stupid the RIAA strategy was. He wrote the above-linked post, titled Use an Ipod, Go to Jail, noting that the RIAA’s strategy was counterproductive and would alienate the public, which would certainly respond by simply downloading more music illegally without ever paying for it. In other words, Dafydd, argued, people will say: if the industry is going after you even when you pay, why should you pay?

Except that the RIAA wasn’t arguing that simply copying files to your computer was illegal. (It appears they might believe that, but aren’t stupid enough to press the issue in court.) They argued that copying your files to a folder that you made available to other users on a peer-to-peer network like Kazaa would be illegal.

How did Dafydd learn that? From a blogger, LaShawn Barber, who bothered to find and read the legal brief from the case that the Washington Post reporter was writing about.

Oh — and when LaShawn asked the WaPo reporter whether he had read the brief . . . he wouldn’t answer.

Heh.

So, like I said, Helen Thomas has been proved right, yet again.

After all, remember what she said: “[T]hey certainly don’t have our standards. They don’t have our ethics . . .”

Nope. Here, bloggers’ standards were higher.

And I’m not just talking about LaShawn Barber, who did the work the WaPo reporter didn’t bother to do. I’m talking about Dafydd’s ethics, too.

Because, you see, when he saw he got it wrong, he admitted it — forthrightly, at the head of his post.

And the WaPo article? I don’t see a correction or clarification appended to that at all. (And, from LaShawn’s conversation with the guy, it seems clear there won’t be one.)

Go Helen!

17 Responses to “Helen Thomas: Vindicated Again!”

  1. You know, my reading of the WAPO article reads that the RIAA is buying for the sharing of files, but noted that the backup .mp3s were illegal. Which seems to be the truth. I think the problem wasn’t the WAPO being dishonest so much as people reading their article wrong (which you could either label as dumb readers or bad writings)

    It’s worthwhile to note what I found on the RIAA website :

    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.

    So it does seem that the RIAA is being inconsistent.

    Jem (9e390b)

  2. “RIAA is suing” rather than “RIAA is buying”

    Jem (9e390b)

  3. Let’s see VOR attack this instance, which proves my arguments on the other Helen Thomas thread.

    Paul (dbbea6)

  4. Paul,
    I’m glad that I provide a reason for you to get up in the morning. Thinking of me at 4 in the morning is kind of … well.. flattering…
    You are arguing apples and oranges. My point was and is that blogs are not a viable alternative to the MSM. They need the MSM to be relevant.
    Most don’t adhere to basic journalistic standards. Much of this is because they don’t have the resources for verification and research that the MSM does.
    Just because the MSM stinks doesn’t mean the blogs have or will replace it. At best they will cause the MSM to pay more attention to those standards mentioned.
    I’m not the only person who sees it this way. Read “Cult of the Amateur” by Andrew Keen for a more detailed breakdown of what the internet is encouraging in terms of mediocrity.

    voiceofreason (783b10)

  5. VOR, the MSM has many times been caught out by bloggers checking a story, the MSM’s resources don’t mean squat because the MSM doesn’t do the verification that they claim to. Nor research.

    And Groklaw has done better primary reporting on the SCO vs IBM et al cases than anyone else.

    I’d be happy if the MSM would shape up because of the bloggers, but I’m not seeing that happening. Which is why the MSM is losing readers and viewers.

    Blogging is a low-barrier-to-entry to activity, but readership migrates to quality over time; so, while it’s easy to get in, you have to work to build a readership. It’s a real market, not the cartel set up of mass media.

    LarryD (feb78b)

  6. Read “Cult of the Amateur” by Andrew Keen for a more detailed breakdown of what the internet is encouraging in terms of mediocrity.

    So actually reading the primary material, actually admitting to a mistake, is “mediocrity”, but getting the facts wrong and refusing to admit it isn’t?

    Rob Crawford (04f50f)

  7. We better find out if LaShawn Barber is an illegal alien — because he/she is doing the work American’s don’t want to do 🙂

    Charlie (8546d8)

  8. I’m glad that I provide a reason for you to get up in the morning. Thinking of me at 4 in the morning is kind of … well.. flattering…

    Wrong again.

    I’m in the central time zone, plus I start work at 6:30 am…which would be 4:30 am PST. I simpy read what you wrote over breakfast, and wrote a reply.

    Don’t you ever tire of projecting?

    You are arguing apples and oranges. My point was and is that blogs are not a viable alternative to the MSM. They need the MSM to be relevant.

    Why? They are incapable of doing original reporting? You know…Who-What-When-Where-Why-How?

    Many original stories rise in the blogosphere simply because the MSM won’t cover them.

    Most don’t adhere to basic journalistic standards. Much of this is because they don’t have the resources for verification and research that the MSM does.

    Those vast resources for verification and research sure helped that WaPo reporter write that RIAA story, huh?

    Those vast resources for verification and research sure helped Dan Rather, huh?

    Those vast resources for verification and research sure helped Reuters catch that blatantly obvious photoshopped picture they ran, huh?

    That’s just a few examples.

    Want more? Simply click on the Dog Trainer archive link. Our host has been playing LA Times Smackdown for years.

    How do you explain the blogs beating the MSM like Georgia Tech did Cumberland College in 1912? (Final score: 222-0, the biggest shutout in the history of college football. No, that’s not a typo.)

    Just because the MSM stinks doesn’t mean the blogs have or will replace it. At best they will cause the MSM to pay more attention to those standards mentioned.

    Really? When?

    I’m not the only person who sees it this way. Read “Cult of the Amateur” by Andrew Keen for a more detailed breakdown of what the internet is encouraging in terms of mediocrity.

    Several people have already refuted this statement; I defer to them.

    So… want to go another round? Or have you finally had enough?

    Paul (dbbea6)

  9. Funnily enough, Patterico, one of the major reasons I am so quick and forthright in noting those mistakes I see (and I’m sure there are other mistakes I stubbornly miss again and again)… is you.

    Your repeated pummeling of the Los Angeles Dog Tr— er — Times made a deep impression on me, even before I was a guest blogger here; and the lesson I took from that bloody massacre was that being wrong now and again does not particularly hurt an entity’s credibility.

    What hurts credibility is denying that you’re wrong, even when it has become undeniable. It reminds half the people of their fathers — and the other half the people of their teenaged sons.

    Think of it like taking a Band-Aid off of some body part with a lot of hair (or waxing your chest, for those weirdos who do such a thing): It may hurt a lot to just rip it off, but it’s over quick. By contrast, trying to pull it off one milimeter at a time hurts just as much… but it continues for days!

    Dafydd

    Dafydd ab Hugh (db2ea4)

  10. Dafyyd,

    I like your attitude and your blog but I could have done without the waxing image. It’s just wrong to wax a lizard.

    DRJ (5942f5)

  11. But, But, How can the MSM make a mistake?
    They’re perfect! Aren’t they?
    They say they are; and, as we all know, they never err.
    And, even if they did, it’s all Bush’s fault!

    Another Drew (8018ee)

  12. “And, even if they did, it’s all Bush’s fault!”

    That’s more truth than you might think, one of the excuses that Dan Rather used during the Rather/Mapes forged memo fiasco was that it was the White House’s fault since the WH did not identify the memo as a forgery to them fast enough.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  13. I am Jeffrey Howell. Just a few weeks ago no one new who I was, but now my name is wide spread on the internet. I just want to clear up a few points that might be misunderstood. Yes, I am being sued for downloading or uploading the R.I.A.A. says it is the same. The facts are. Yes, I have MP3s on my computer. However these files were not placed in a “shared folder.” The MP3s are in fact stored in the C:\My Music folder created by Windows, and have always been. The peer to peer program that was installed on my computer shared my entire hard drive. Of the thousands of files the R.I.A.A. found only a few are their concern. All this will not change the fact that the R.I.A.A. states that recording legally purchased music is illegal, and you could find your self in court.

    “What the Law Says and What it Means
    If you make unauthorized copies of copyrighted music recordings, you’re stealing. You’re breaking the law, and you could be held legally liable for thousands of dollars in damages.
    That’s pretty important information to have, considering how serious it would be if you were caught and prosecuted by the authorities or sued in civil court. It’s even more important that you understand that when you illicitly make or distribute recordings, you are taking something of value from the owner without his or her permission.
    You may find this surprising. After all, when”

    “Copying CDs
    · It’s okay to copy music onto an analog cassette, but not for commercial purposes.
    · It’s also okay to copy music onto special Audio CD-R’s, mini-discs, and digital tapes (because royalties have been paid on them) – but, again, not for commercial purposes.
    · Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:
    à The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own
    à The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.”

    Coppied from the R.I.A.A. website.

    jefrfrey howell (ca749f)

  14. Jeffrey Howell:

    (I’ll assume that really is you.)

    The point is that the RIAA is not claiming in court filings that they can go after people who simply upload CDs to their personal computers for use in, say, an iPod (as we do here at Lizard Central). They say, rightly or wrongly, that they are going after you for putting them into a shared KaZaA folder.

    Now, if your argument is that they weren’t in a shared KaZaA (or other P2P) folder, that’s a factual difference that is properly resolved in a court. My only point was that the WaPo story falsely claimed that the RIAA was arguing they could legally sue customers, even if the RIAA itself believed those customers were only uploading CDs to computer en route to an MP3 player.

    From all that I have seen, the RIAA never made such an argument. In fact, you have just quoted a refutation of the claim that they did…

    * Beyond that, there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music on a CD onto a CD-R. However, burning a copy of CD onto a CD-R, or transferring a copy onto your computer hard drive or your portable music player, won’t usually raise concerns so long as:

    · The copy is made from an authorized original CD that you legitimately own;

    · The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

    They’re not saying you have the right to do so; that’s beyond the scope of what the RIAA cares to discuss. But they’re also not asserting that doing so is a litigatable tort.

    As a published author, I have much experience with web sites that put up e-versions of my books for free downloads… and who angrily tell me I should be thanking them for promoting my fiction!

    I can extrapolate to how much more annoyed a composer would be to find the music for which he should receive a royalty posted for free download on Napster or its successors, with the adolescent explanation that it’s somehow “good for the composer” to give away everything he creates for free. It’s like saying it’s good for movie-makers when people sneak into the theater without paying.

    The reality is that people who upload and download copyrighted material for or from others are thieves, crooks, and liars. Maybe nobody ever told them that, and maybe they’re too dumb to understand; but it’s true. The rule that “there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch” should be a clue-by-four, however.

    They are completely different from those who simply transfer music from legitimately purchased CDs to their own MP3 players to listen at work… just for themselves, not to copy and pass around to all their friends, so the friends get to have their own copies for free without having to buy them — and without having to put money into the pockets of the people who wrote the music and depend upon it for their living.

    I hope you see the distinction; and I hope you are on the side of the copyright holders — even when they are giant corporations who bought the copyright from the creators — and those who deserve royalties… not on the side of criminal freeloaders who think the world owes them everything they want for nothing down and nothing a month.

    Dafydd

    Dafydd ab Hugh (db2ea4)

  15. IRT Helen being right…
    …a stopped clock is right twice a day….

    paul from fl (12026e)

  16. could someone explain a small difference for me. I buy a lot of hardback books(being impatient). After I have read them and had other members of my family who care to do so read them: I donate them to the LA County library. Come to think of it, the library buys cd’s and books to lend out and nobody obtains any additional revenue from that activity. What is the difference between what both I and the library do and someone who buys a cd and copies it for noncommercial purposes? Or who lets others listen to it.

    Bar Sinister (8f03e9)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0905 secs.