J
jim
(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.
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.