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?'"

10 of 385 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmmm.... by gbulmash · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I'm not sure I buy an industry lawyer telling a 15 year old girl he wouldn't have a case unless she lied. If he had the power to coerce her, he'd say "just do it or else."

    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

    1. Re:Hmmmm.... by canuck57 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which RIAA moron thought this would result in good PR down the road? Stuff like this will always come out.

      Your kidding right? It is all about numbers, extortion, PR and hope people cave in. Lets face it that this is extortion tax. RIAA tax. Get 200,000 people just to pay a $200 (pseudo) fine and that equates to $40,000,000. How many people can afford a lawyer and time off from work to defend themselves for $200? It is corporate extortion against the public. These legal parasites don't care about families.

      The courts should hammer the RIAA where they have no case, or cannot prove their accusations or are otherwise negligent in their behavior. RIAA are baby eaters and worse, professional extortionists backed by a legal system with no guts.

      They be glad I am not sitting on a jury. If they could not prove their case I would award expenses plus punitive damages that would make them take a second look while they spin uncontrollably. Treating the general public like criminals is not going to solve anything.

      The fact of the mater is that the technology today allows for rapid distribution of media and entertainment that the established mega monopolies can no longer control. So like prohibition, the monopolistic control of the entertainment industry must change. Allow movies to be legally downloaded for $1 and the block buster might net $200M in a weekend without the middleman and retail costs. And it does not require Sony/BMG, Arista or any other RIAA memebr company.

      Resistance is futile, the Internet will roll over the RIAA in time.

    2. Re:Hmmmm.... by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I will not be so stupid as tell the court that I believe in nullification... And, no, they have no business knowing what happens during deliberation.

  2. all for $4000 by Crudely_Indecent · · Score: 4, Interesting
    The transcript of the deposition that followed this motion gives us a glimpse into exactly how far the recording industry is willing to go...


    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
  3. Their house of cards is collapsing. by Spazntwich · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  4. Re:The sad part... by techno-vampire · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yes, the RIAA will probably get away with it. However, the landshark involved will, with luck, get disbarred and spend several years in the Graybar Hotel. Why? Because in order to convict the RIAA louses (Although calling one of them a louse is an insult to every louse that ever lived.) you'd have to prove that said louse knew in advance what was being done and approved of it. If all he or she did was tell the lawyer involved, "Win the case and I don't care how," that's not good enough. You'd have to prove either specific instructions or advance knowlege. Shame, really, but that's the way it works.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  5. Bad guys ?! by Chaffar · · Score: 5, Interesting
    all they're doing is forcing the actual file sharers further underground where they're harder to find, which leads to the next round of lawsuits hitting an even lower ratio of bad guys to innocent people

    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...

  6. Re:Coercion? by BrynM · · Score: 5, Interesting
    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.
    A group of old attorney friends of mine used to call it Matlocking: "Everything was going fine, until Nate started matlocking during the depo. I thought the court reporter was going to kill him after 20 minutes of typing everything twice". Kind of like monologueing in the incredibles.

    Some think it lends a know-it-all air of authority to the questioner, but after many a drunken discussion with them it's just a way for the questioner to get time to think or (in the case of one friend) remember what the witness actually said. These guys were work-comp attorneys, so they were a bit oddball and irreverent in the first place. Boy, did they havesome great parties ;)

    --
    US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
  7. *evil grin* by torstenvl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Yet another piece on the pile. by crusher-1 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's cases like this that make me think that the RIAA is in it's death throes.


    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_.