Register: RIAA secret meeting a hoax.
looks like the RIAA thing was a hoax ... http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html The trouble with the Internet is that it's just too darn fast. Publish a story and it's all around the world before you've caught your breath. Or had a chance to change what you'd incautiously posted prematurely. Which is certainly the case with Monday's 'Music biz wants tougher DMCA, CPRM 2 to protect copyright' story. <snip>
On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 04:12:13PM -0400, Elyn Wollensky forwarded:
looks like the RIAA thing was a hoax ...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html
The trouble with the Internet is that it's just too darn fast. Publish a story and it's all around the world before you've caught your breath. Or
The trouble has nothing to do with the Internet. It has everything to do with shoddy journalism. I like the way the "retraction" still argued, pitifully and implausibly, that the alleged secret meeting "may" still have happened. -Declan
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/31/22138.html
The trouble with the Internet is that it's just too darn fast. Publish a story and it's all around the world before you've caught your breath. Or
The trouble has nothing to do with the Internet. It has everything to do with shoddy journalism.
I like the way the "retraction" still argued, pitifully and implausibly, that the alleged secret meeting "may" still have happened.
... but only those in the super-secret inner sanctum know for sure (& it reads like an abridged techo version of Leyner's "Young Bergdorf Goodman Brown") ;~) elyn
-Declan
Well, no. If folks no longer worked at their respective firms, and if they were seen in public thousands of miles away the same day, I think it seems pretty clear that the Register's "secret meeting" report is hokum. Don't need no conspiracy theory to explain this kind of shoddy reporting. -Declan At 06:24 PM 10/10/01 -0400, Elyn Wollensky wrote:
... but only those in the super-secret inner sanctum know for sure (& it reads like an abridged techo version of Leyner's "Young Bergdorf Goodman Brown") ;~) elyn
Declan McCullagh wrote:
Well, no. If folks no longer worked at their respective firms, and if they were seen in public thousands of miles away the same day, I think it seems pretty clear that the Register's "secret meeting" report is hokum.
Leaving the firms was just a cover for their continued secret work. Sightings thousands of miles away were holograms, body doubles, or clones. Sheesh, don't you know _anything_?
Don't need no conspiracy theory to explain this kind of shoddy reporting.
You're just mad because you're not part of the conspiracy. Ta, SRF, Global Conspirator #3552 -- Steve Furlong Computer Condottiere Have GNU, Will Travel 617-670-3793 "Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly while bad people will find a way around the laws." -- Plato
on Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 06:29:23PM -0400, Declan McCullagh (declan@well.com) wrote:
Well, no. If folks no longer worked at their respective firms, and if they were seen in public thousands of miles away the same day, I think it seems pretty clear that the Register's "secret meeting" report is hokum.
Documentation on sitings out of DC? This wasn't part of Smith's retraction.
Don't need no conspiracy theory to explain this kind of shoddy reporting.
C'mon, it's the Register... OK, they usually do better. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Has anyone seen one of the full messages from the source of the meeting story other than Tony Smith, me and one other party which was cc'ed on mine? That's not to say Tony got the one I got -- he has not answered my inquiry to him yesterday. There are fascinating parts of my message that haven't come to light -- yet. We'll publish all the messages with the tracking headers we've got it if we can prove the information is false. Which Tony Smith didn't do beyond being, apparently, buffaloed by disclaimers that are standard smoke for shenanigans, at least as far as his retraction went. Could be he's blowing smoke to cover his own looking more closely at the matter. Hal's Finney's critique was pretty good, but I assume it was based on the information that has been made public. Tony Smith didn't report stuff in the message I got, again not that we got the same message. Nor did he report the results of a follow-up from his source if he asked for it. What we have done with a bit of technical tracking and matching time data is get within one or two boxes of the source, ID'ed an unusual browser type, the operating system, some other yadda log file stuff. Fingering the source is the last thing to do, and then only if the episode was rigged by RIAA or other alleged attendees. No need to beat up on Smith, there are so many blandly verifiable stories published that it's refreshing to see one that remains disputably interesting. Sorry to see his retraction just when the topic gets interesting. Hope he digs up more on why the story was spread rather than duck the spin control.
participants (5)
-
Declan McCullagh -
Elyn Wollensky -
John Young -
Karsten M. Self -
Steve Furlong