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?'"
Since the RIAA is clearly an evil organization, I suggest that everyone stop purchasing music. And, stop downloading it as well.
Think about it, if no one even "illegally" downloaded music, the RIAA would go away in a big hurry. What would be worse for them, piracy or no one on earth giving a shit what they did?
How about we start naming this evil by its true name.
Everybody is thinking the Riaa is the bad guy. Take a look at who they are though, its Sony, Warner music, Walt Disney Records, EMI Records and so on. All the Riaa name is for is to make sure there wont be a newspaper headline saying something like "EMI Records sues granny" or something like that.
So no its not a rogue lawyer for a faceless organization. Its Sony, its EMI, its Disney and they are trying to not get their name dragged through the mud by hiding behind the name Riaa
Full list of members of the Riaa http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp
RIAA's (along with several famous musicians') problem is that technology has rendered their way of doing business obsolete.
Why does RIAA hate file-sharing? They're not stupid; they know the actual "loss" is nowhere near what they claim they lose (whether it's a loss at all is debateable). They aren't worried about losing customers: they are worried about losing musicians.
Professional-quality audio production software can now be bought for a few thousand dollars. Peer-to-peer networks as well as other Internet protocols allow musicians to distribute music without a label. Anyone with the talent, time, and guts can market his or her music without the need for a label, and get people to go to his or her concerts which is where musicians make money anyways.
A lot of my favorite bands don't have labels: they distribute their music through p2p, on the web, and through tape/CD/mp3 swapping. That's what keeps RIAA up at night: the idea that musicians (and then consumers) would see that RIAA doesn't actually serve any purpose. (A&R? Yeah, maybe if they actually did that... heck they outsource A&R to reality TV shows now...)
I'm sure musicians who are addicted to album sales want to use the legal system to fix the world at the stage of early-90s technology -- I'm also sure horse stablers wanted to fix the world at the stage before the internal combustion engine. You don't have a "right" to make a living in any particular way, though you have a right to try.
All's true that is mistrusted
This is hardly surprising, is it?
We all knew the RIAA uses mob tactics to get what they want. This is just another proof...
I'm actually surprised nobody's tried to sue them under the RICO act yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd win.
The difference is that if you commit perjury, you lie under oath. Lawyers are never under oath (unless not in their capacity as lawyer) so cannot commit perjury. (Maybe for opening or closing statements; I'm not sure what happens if they say something then. But most definitely NOT in an off-the-books meeting.)
Suborning perjury is if you either make or let someone lie. For instance, if a lawyer knows that if they call a witness that witness will lie, in my understanding they cannot call that witness, or at least can't ask about what they will lie about. Otherwise they are suborning perjury.
It seems that in this case the lawyers didn't even do that; my impression is that the girl never reached the witness stand. (If she did, then it would be suborning perjury.) Even assuming the girl is telling the truth, I don't know there's a crime here. It's certainly an ethical violation worthy of getting disbarred, but no tort and no crime.
IANAL
"There has grown up in the minds of certain groups in this country the notion that because a man or a corporation has made a profit out of the public for a number of years , the government and the courts are charged with the duty of guaranteeing such profit in the future, even in the face of changing circumstances and contrary public interest. This strange doctrine is not supported by statute nor common law. Neither individuals nor corporations have any right to come into court and ask that the clock of history be stopped, or turned back, [for their private benefit]." --Robert Heinlein, in the short story "Life-Line".
I took a class at Harvard (online) last year, taught by the man heading up the Berkeley Center for Internet & Law (one *very* intelligent J. Palfrey), and he made this point so GLARINGLY clear that you wanted to give him standing ovations.
There are several viable alternate business-models to the RIAA's, now that we no longer need their trucks to deliver CDs to Wal-Marts around the country. All of them would be far better for musicians AND consumers than lining the slimy pockets of a handful of wretched assholes up top of a crumbling pyramid...the trick now is to make the public, and especially the musicians, aware of them.
-K*
"If we don't change direction soon, we'll end up where we're going." - Prof. Irwin Corey
On the other hand, I very, very, very much wanted to believe that the Department of Fatherland Security was harassing college students who were checking out copies of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book. Because if it had been true, it would have served as further evidence of the Bush Administration's mendacity, and how desperately they need to be stopped yesterday.
But, as it happened, the story wasn't true (which in no way exonerates the Bush Administration).
The RIAA are clearly a bunch of amoral, unethical assholes. But before I get worked up about a single teenager's vague accusation against a RIAA lawyer and add this event to their ever-lengthening list of misdeeds, I'm going to wait for further corroborative evidence. 'Cause if it turns out the kid is making it up, It Will Not Look Good For Us.
When you are engaged in what is fundamentally a battle of ethics, it is absolutely critical your hands remain spotlessly clean.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
The Original Parent (and possibly you) seem to be forgetting that all Lawyers are Officers of the Court first and employees of [x] second.
6 86.html
It is one thing for the police to coerce someone, it is another for a lawyer to make them perjur themselves. Ethically, a lawyer is obligated to try to convince their client not to perjur themselves and if that fails, they must withdraw from the case if they know someone is planning to commit perjury.
Ontop of that, they are obligated to notify the judge if they believe that someone in the trial is going to commit perjury. http://www.courts.state.mn.us/lprb/86bbarts/bb050
This is Ethics 101 stuff and these lawyers failed.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
As a general rule, lawyers are never disbarred, no matter how egregious the offense. When they are, they are usually re-admitted to the state bar within a few years. The only way a lawyer serves jail time for suborning perjury in a civil case is if the case involves millions of dollars or the loss of human life, and even then it's as rare as hen's teeth.
Judges are unwilling to convict lawyers of technical offenses (and in this kind of case defendants always waive their right to a jury trial). Prosecutors are unwilling to even bring charges, partly because of the low conviction rates.
Remember, the legislators and administrators writing the laws are lawyers. The judges administering the laws are lawyers. The prosecutors enforcing the law are lawyers. Welcome to government of, by, and for the lawyers. What kind of idiot lawyer sends another lawyer to jail in a situation like that? Just causes trouble for everybody.