RIAA Bullies Witnesses Into Perjury

QT writes "A Michigan couple is counter-suing the RIAA after they learned that the RIAA had bullied their witnesses into lying. The story revolves around a 15-year-old girl who, when deposed, told how RIAA lawyers told her that she had to commit perjury just so they could win their case. From the article: 'Q - Did [the RIAA lawyer] tell you why he needed you to stick with your original false story? A - Because he said he didn't have a case unless I did. Q - So, he told you that he didn't have a case unless you stuck with the original false story?'"

Comments

RIAA embarrassments??

[brokencomputer]

Wow, I can't decide if this might be more embarrassing than when they sued a stone-dead grandma.

Re:RIAA embarrassments??

[LexNaturalis]

IANAL, but since this is a civil action, the plaintiff can, at any time, drop their case against the defendant, which is the same thing as dismissing the case. The language might be slightly different, but it is within the plaintiff's rights to drop the case entirely without asking a judge's permission. You CAN ask a judge to dismiss a case againt YOU, but you don't have to ask the judge if you're the one bringing the case to begin with.

It's just like a district attorney or federal attorney can drop criminal charges against a person without asking the judge's permission. The only time a judge is involved is if there is a plea bargain, in which case the judge has to approve the plea bargain. So in this (limited) case, the RIAA is very much within their rights and the law. That's not to say their other tactics and actions are lawful or ethical.

ouch

[hostingreviews]

So the RIAA bullied a little girl? Unthinkable. They would NEVER, ever EVER do something so... okay so they do.

Re:Coercion?

[pgpckt]

Q. It wasn't true. And you felt that Mr. Krichbaum was trying to get you to say something that wasn't true?

It seems like the interviewer is the one telling the girl what's true and what isn't. "It wasn't true" doesn't sound like a question to me. Although I'm sure the RIAA has done stuff much worse than this.

You are quoting it out of context. Look to the prior question and answer:

Q. -- Jim and yourself had ripped the music off?
A. Yes.
Q. And that wasn't true, was it?
A. Correct.
Q. Correct that it wasn't true?
A. It wasn't true, yes.
Q. It wasn't true. And you felt that Mr. Krichbaum was trying to get you to say something that wasn't true?
A. Yes.

You can clearly see from the dialogue that the questioning lawyer is merely repeating the answer the witness gave immediately prior.

This is a common speech error among lawyers. Many people when they speak "fill gaps" with "Uh-huh" or "Um" and the like. Many lawyers also use these space fillers. With lawyers, of course, it is Q&A, so one of the most common space fillers is to repeat the prior answer as part of your next question.

Really poor lawyers do this in EVERY QUESTION. It gets annoying quick. But even good lawyers do it from time to time. It's just the way people talk.

There is nothing dirty about this. You might also note from the record that there was another lawyer there, a Mr. Miller, who objects from time to time. He is working for the other side, and would have objected if this was improper (which didn't happen, because it wasn't).

You may be interested into..

[elpapacito]

learning which companies do support RIAA. Let them know what is RIAA doing so that they can do some image-issues calculus.

That list is inaccurate

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate to be the one to break the news, but that list is inaccurate. I know for a fact that Fat Wreck Chords is *NOT*, and has never been, a member of the RIAA. In fact, they had to fight for over a year to get the RIAA to stop claiming that they were a member. It looks like the RIAA has gone back to their old ways, though.

Simply put, the RIAA will list every single label it can find, and add them to a master list. Why? So that it appears that they have more backing than they really do.

Re:That list is inaccurate

[metricmusic]

Here's their say on that from 2000:


  Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:14:23 -0700
From: Fat Wreck Chords mailbag@fatwreck.com
To: Adam Fogler afogler@---.---.edu
Subject: Re: Fat Wreck Chords a member of the RIAA? Say it ain't so!

Adam,
We our not part of the RIAA. We are a label that uses RED (though not exclusively) as a distributor, hence maybe that is why our name appears on the list. Still we've never signed anything with the RIAA. That being said, FAT WRECK CHORDS does believe in copyright and is against piracy.

Now on a side note, I hope you are running your computer on LINUX or some other open source software?

floyd


http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6826&thres hold=1&commentsort=0&tid=141&tid=4&mode=thread&cid =882333

Don't boycott the entire music industry...

[necro2607]

I think you're failing to realize that there are MANY MANY musicians out there whose music is NOT being sold by any affiliate of the RIAA.

There is NO REASON to cease purchasing music by these musicians.

The RIAA doesn't own the entire music industry. They might own an unbelievable percentage of the pop music industry, but I assure you, to say that no more music should be bought is completely ludicrous.

Instead, before making a purchase, check to see that the record label you're purchasing from is not RIAA-affiliated.

Check out RIAA Radar to search albums and see if they are released by RIAA-member record labels or not.

I fully support boycotting all RIAA-affiliated products but trying to kill the music industry is, to say the least, going a little overboard.

Re:Hmmmm....

[crmartin]

Specifically, he should be indicted and disbarred for "subornation of perjury".

Just figured you'd want to know.

Re:Not perjury.

[TubeSteak]

Ms. Granado went on to testify that Mr. Krichbaum had urged her to provide false and inaccurate testimony with regard to the entire portion of her original testimony implicating the Nelsons

my impression is that the girl never reached the witness stand

Original Testimony. She had already made false statements to the court.

I don't know there's a crime here

Try contributing-to-the-delinquency-of-a-minor. That's a (4th degree) felony charge right there. I also thought suborning purjory was a felony charge too. Nobody likes witness tampering.

This lawyer is fucked. His first obligation is not to his client, but to the legal process. I see disbarment in his future.