Slashdot Mirror
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?'"
Wow, I can't decide if this might be more embarrassing than when they sued a stone-dead grandma.
The Television Wiki
So the RIAA bullied a little girl? Unthinkable. They would NEVER, ever EVER do something so... okay so they do.
Why would you trust a testimonial when choosing hosting?
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:
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).
Lawrence Lessig is my personal hero.
learning which companies do support RIAA. Let them know what is RIAA doing so that they can do some image-issues calculus.
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.