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?'"
BUT, if it is the case that he did coerce her to commit perjury, I'd seriously suggest he be criminally indicted for contributing to the delinquency of a minor and any other child-harm charge they can use against him. Plus anything in the conspiracy vein.
It would nice to see an RIAA lawyer disbarred and jailed. I seriously doubt it would happen (see /. article in two weeks where the local prosecutor declines to file charges as he doesn't believe the witness is credible enough to build a case around). But a boy can dream, can't he?
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
I doubt that the recording industry had much to do with coersion....that sounds like a lawyer trait to me. Some people will never learn. The recording industry could spend their money much more wisely. Win or lose, lawyers are the only ones who really win in court.
' Plaintiffs' representative further threatened that unless Mr. Nelson paid $4,000.00 immediately, his client authorized him to conduct extensive discovery which would only increase the amount that he would eventually owe.
I'm sure that the law firm was paid much more than $4000 to win this case illegally.
"Lame" - Galaxar
The sad part is that they will probably get away with this. Just wave the greenbacks at Washington, and your woes go away...
DYWYPI?
The Television Wiki
In recent days, it seems like more and more stories about the RIAA royally fucking up are getting picked up by the major media outlets. All of this bad press will (hopefully) finally get the American populace aware of how bad these companies really are, and possibly mobilize the sloth-like public to actually do something about it.
Rejoice, slashdot nerds and trolls. The time of revenge may finally be at hand.
And who exactly would those "bad guys" be? Hmmm? You don't see them breaking the law and using mafia-style racketeering techniques to win cases...
Remember, this is a war of rights... civil disobedience is a way of showing your discontentment with a law. Some take it to extremes, some are just casual downloaders, but WE are not the bad guys.
P.S: I know that the guy who wrote the article didn't mean what I'm trying to infer from what he said, but these "slips of tongue" can be significant and "used against" the involved party, because it does mean that of all the people sued for downloading copyrighted materials, SOME were "bad guys", which IMHO isn't true...
But my client, Mr RIAA Lawyer, never explicitly said that she must say that. He mearly said that it would be benifical to his case which was non-existant based on the facts. Any culpability must rest with the one who actually commits the perjury. My other client, the RIAA, will immediately be filing a counter-counter suit against this female for dragging the RIAA's already tarnished name through the mud (again).
<Lawyer hat off>
I think it would be nice to slip in state legislation in as many states as possible that does a little death-by-a-thousand-cuts on corporations who do this kind of thing.
Maybe by making it illegal for any party contributing to the delinquency of a minor, and all their members, agents, and partners, to sell their wares to minors or in stores accessible by minors.
I imagine that you'd see everyone withdraw from the RIAA pretty quick. No music label wants their CDs to be available only in porn shops.
however, could the 15 year old girl have been committing perjury in the first place?
Surely, as a minor, she wouldn't be able to take an oath to tell the truth and was therefore not under any legal obligation not to lie (of course, if it turns out that she did then all her evidence would have to be thrown out...)
Therefore, is the lawyer Subourning perjury, since the perjury couldn't have happened in the first place?
Just for the record, WoW has neither spawned nor borne witness to the creation of any original gaming style or piece of gamer dialogue.
"For the win" has been around at least since Dark age of camelot, if not earlier, and so has For the Lose, which another poster also pointed out has also stood for Faster Than Light in SciFi circles for the last sixty years or so.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Here's the way we should handle these and every case thereafter in every court:
1. Explain to the jury the details of the trial: what the prosecution is alleging, and what the law states.
2. Explain to the jury the details of the crime: what the burden of proof is, and what the penalty is if the defendant is found guilty of violating the law.
3. Explain to the jury their 9th and 10th Amendment rights to nullify abusive and unfounded laws, especially laws that restrict a person's basic rights as protected by the Constitution and inherent in every person. Let the jury know it is not only their right but their responsibility to judge the law as well as the defendant. Let them know that abusive laws should be found illegal, and to punish prosecutors who abuse these abusive laws.
This is why I don't care about these cases -- we've already lost. When the individual's right to judge the law is returned, I'll pay attention. Until then, just shove these criminals into jail with the non-violent drug users, prostitutes and other people who should be free, not imprisoned or fined by an unjust State.
I would imagine that its sworn testimoney. So one way or other its perjury. Either she lied for RIAA or she lied about them. You can verify by the links that she said what she said.
r ism_blog/2005/12/the_presidents_.html
As for the USA, check out where we've (including the president) admitted to illigal wiretaps. DESPITE there being a special court setup for secret wiretaps in cases like these. In fact you can go ahead and start the wiretap, and inform that special court a few days AFTER you start if its time critical. And if that court denies you, you can CONTINUE to wiretap while you appeal. There's really no excuse for not taking advantage of that specially created court for these situations. Very sloppy, and odds are if we do get anything useful, it wont be able to be used in criminal cases because of this "oops."
Quote"FISA created a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the "FISA Court") made up of federal district judges, to review just such types of surveillance."
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterro
Oh and check out how many wiretaps of ANY kind have been denied in last couple years (especially the special patriot act ones). Its an incredibly small percentage. So its not like we had the excuse of (but it might have been denied!). We also dont have the excuse of "that specia FISA court might have leaked it!" because they all have some of the highest security clearances.
If you ask me, this is FAR more serious than some books being checked out. I've been on Bush's side for a lot of things, but this is over the top.
They are, more or less! Take it from a musician of over 30 years. Ever figure out the cost of going to a conventional RIAA approved recording studio - very expensive! If you are not rich or lucky you generally need a label backing. But as others have pointed out there are alternatives now and the RIAA is turning into a case of mind over matter. No one will mind in the long run because the RIAA will not matter .
CubaseSX costs about $400 US, Ableton live for about the same. Protools is about double this at the entry level (by the way this is generally what the industry uses now). A/D converter/interface for as low ~$100 to a couple thousand (I have a Tascam FW-1884 interface/mixer). You can use things such as VST plugins (e.g. compressor, EQ, Amp model, ad infinum) and VSTi virtual synth instruments (VST = Virtual Studio Technology) and the list goes on. The point I am making is that with talent, a bit of a learning curve (and there are plenty of online media to help you learn sound engineering) and a modest amount of money, one can create and produce industry standard music.
If you are heads up you save you songs @ a 24bit/96kHz format and take it to a qualified engineer, for again a modest price, to master you work. The RIAA know this and they also know that the new breed of musicians are savvy to this. This debunks the RIAAs long stand grip on the industry. They are desperate and too clueless to figure out they are the ones that must adapt - not the consumer. It just drives them nuts that the tables have shifted and the consumers are again starting to dictate the conditions of the market.
This is the way it is supposed to work, the consumers dictate the market and the product lines and costs. The RIAA cannot come out and let it be known really what is their motivation - preventing the loss of their market lock and monopoly. They are fighting a losing battle. Even if they get laws passed, in say.., The U.S., E.U. and parts of Asia. But considering that China is the sleeping dragon and is well known for their pirating prowess the RIAA has not a chance in hell.
Yep, they are more than desperate - they are more likely at their wits end. Nothing seems to be going their way in the courts or the market, so they play the my lawyer is bigger than your lawyer game to attempt to scare people from pirating (which to a degree is understandable) and more over looking to other non-RIAA alternatives to get music. This is really what scares them - the mind over matter aspect. No will _mind_ because the RIAA, in the long run, will not _matter_.
Hm, stop... illegally... downloading... music... you know, I think you may be onto something there!
/. account so I could see exactly how low karma could get.)
So what you're saying, is we should stop violating copyright laws, and the RIAA will stop suing people for violating these laws? I really think you're onto something, man. Good job.
(I almost wish I had a
Oh, and yea, vote with your dollars, for sure! Always a good principle. RIAA member or no.
I have an idea. It's either incredibly naive and stupid or brilliant. You have the RIAA logging onto P2P networks and scanning the network for people redistributing copy right material. Then they subpoena ISPs for the name's of those people using the IP address at the date and time they detected them redistributing their copy right material. Next they sue ma and pop for ridiculous amounts of money. Instead of going to court they effectively force them to settle out of court for a few thousand dollars. Why not just turn the tables on them with the same exact tactics? First get as many people to participate in this as possible. A 1,000 people would be a good goal. Next have everyone make a recording of something remotely sounding like music. And now comes the hard part; identify an RIAA IP address in advance. Subpoena their ISP for their identity. Next take them to court and sue for $1 million seeking damages for redistributing your copy right work. The only *evidence* is your word. With 1,000 individuals doing this, they would be mounting a collective $1 billion dollar lawsuit. Ironically, some of the cases would make it to court and in all or nearly all cases the plaintiff would fail. However, it would create a precedence that more evidence is needed than simple "computer evidence" being supplied by the plaintiff in P2P redistribution lawsuits. This would all be used to achieve a cookie cutter way of short circuiting their law suits against ma and pop. Stupid or not?
When Napster came into being, music sales shot up over 20% and the recording industry had their most profitable year ever. The year after they shut down napster, CD sales droped 30%, and they blamed it on file sharing. Go figure. I know I bought more CDs when napster was around, it let me listen to songs I would have never heard otherwise and find artists I didn't mind shelling out $15 for. When they shut Napster down, I pretty much stopped buying CDs, partly because the greedy bastards ticked me off.
You have to understand what a civil suit is actually about. It's about lawyers making money. It is most certainly not about obtaining justice. Lawyers bring suits because they believe they can make money. Both sides make money, winning is hitting the jackpot. You can be sure that the he bigger the prize, the more lawyers will do whatever it takes to ensure they win. What you're seeing here is child's play compared to what goes on in the big money lawsuits.
There is no justice in courtrooms. There is winning and losing and making money. Justice sometimes is coincidental with winning and losing.
53. After being confronted with the falsity of Ms. Granado's statements, Plaintiffs' counsel refused to accept the truth and instead launched a counterattack accusing both Mr. Nelson and/or his attorney of a criminal conspiracy. (Exhibit 10, 11, 12, 13)
54. In their efforts to cover up their own wrongdoing, Plaintiffs' counsel (1) harassed both the witness and her parents, (2) encouraged them to sign false declarations under oath, (3) threatened Defendants and their counsel to refrain from contacting Ms. Granado (4) participated in numerous meetings with the witness to re-establish her original testimony despite their knowledge and awareness that the testimony was false. (Exhibit 9, pp. 68-71, 79-82, 90-91; Exhibit 13)
Not only did they break the rules, but they turned around and blamed the other guy. That reminds me of 12 year olds (mostly because I have to deal with that when I supervise them at the local Teen Center).
Here's the kicker: On June 30, 2005, Plaintiffs deposed several additional witnesses who either lived with the Nelsons or had access to their computer. All of the witnesses confirmed that the Nelsons never participated in any infringing activity nor did they know about the use of the KaZaA program on their computer until receiving a notification letter from their internet provider.
This teenage girl was the only witness who claimed that the defendants did it. Everyone else said she did it. Even if her original testimony was true, how is that a case. If 10 people say that Joe is guilty, and Joe blames Bob, why do you bring the case against Bob instead of Joe?
the problem is that the Labels have most successful artists tuck in contracts and Radio stations won't play anyone who isn't
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
There is a lawyer near my hometown who faked his own death, collected the life insurance, kept the money and now is re-admitted to the bar and practicing law (wicked good divorce lawyer)
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.
When it does happen, it's pretty sweet justice.
Case in point, the two attorneys working with Al Sharpton on the Tawana Brawley hoax were soon disbarred.
This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
What some people don't seem to realise is that music has now moved out of
g raphy
the realm where copyright works. Copyright is a state sponsered monopoly
designed to aid small companies when competing against larger companies.
The basic premise is that it costs $X to create a copy of an item, this
item can then be sold for $X+P, however, Alice with her little company
only has $Y available so she can make Y/X of these items to sell to Bob
and friends. Alice's problem is that the demand is much larger than this
so before copyright Mallory (the owner of the big company) could throw
cash in a pot and make lots of profit selling to Carol and Dave before
Alice can even get an appointment with Ivan at the bank. Copyright allows
Alice some time to slowly build up her company so she can sell to Carol
and Dave.
If $X (the cost to copy) is very small or zero this breaks down
completely. Take a tasty example, hamburgers, copyright could be
considered to apply here there are all sorts of differences, special
sauces and so on but the cost to copy (ie make another hamburger) is
tiny so instead of trying to rip each other off the hamburger companies
just try to make their product different then redefine this difference
as 'better'. So Alice can easily join this market, she can talk to Ivan
before anyone know what she wants to do and probably even has an advantage
against the 'big boys' because she can change faster. Often Mallory will
even welcome her because she is the 'honorable competittion' that keeps
the monopolies department quiet.
Both the music and the computer industries have spent considerable
amounts to develop ways to reduce the cost to copy and they have been
tremendously successful. Now they have to change their businesses to
work in the environment they have created. Many individual companies are
succeeding (IBM!) other are getting trampled (SCO!) but committees are
(eg RIAA) are very slow.
OTOH it would appear that the book industry were very happy with the
status quo, they have treated books on disk with distain claiming that
a book in the hand it better than a light on the screen. They go for
tradition and the advantages that paper has; they may sink but the
lifeboats are ready in the forms of demand printing, ebooks, custom books
and so on until then appealing to the snob in people is working for them.
The RIAA have driven themselves over a cliff and are now trying to
legislate the law of gravity out of existance but they need to transform,
if they don't they will splat. And I do not want to see them take any
company that is as good at making tech toys as SONY with them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Characters_in_crypto