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
Wow, I can't decide if this might be more embarrassing than when they sued a stone-dead grandma.
The Television Wiki
Change takes time, thank god they're doing us a favor by speeding up their own demise with stunts like this. I'd love to see someone make a website with info on the lawyers who represent them. Lets dig up all the crap we can find on them and post it on the web (nothing illegal of course) and make sure people realize what kind of lowlifes they're considering dealing with if they are a potential client and Google one of the lawyers.
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
Perjury in the US comes with a sentence of at least a few years in prison. Are we finally going to put some of these RIAA assholes where they belong?
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 just goes to show that 99% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.
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.
Now they're suing the 15 year old for copyright infringement for reading their statement outloud in public.
The RIAA would go to customers' houses, brutally murder them, and grind up the body as organ meat for third world countries if they could get away with it.
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
sixteen comments so far and no industry shill has stepped up to defend them.
RIAA shills, you're slipping. WTF do you think they're paying you for?
(MRC="disarm")
I used to work for one of the major record labels. The lawyers that were on staff were the kinds of people that partied way too hard and barely graduated from law school. If any of them were presenting the case, this wouldn't surprise me in the least. However, I would figure that the RIAA would have competent lawyers working for them. I guess maybe they don't.
Be a real patriot: Question authority. Think for yourself. Formulate your own conclusions.
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...
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?
RICO
Oh, gee, could you be looking for this?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
The fact that RIAA is willing to bring a 15 year old witness into the case at all shows how low they are going. What was she expected to tell the jury?
The sperm cell has a one in ten-million chance of eventually becoming a human being!
Just don't ask me what the difference is - they both sound like "lieing" to me.
learning which companies do support RIAA. Let them know what is RIAA doing so that they can do some image-issues calculus.
Civil disobedience. I like that thought. File downloading and sharing as protest. Protected First Amendment speech. Bring on the ACLU!
Wouldn't that be a W00t!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
FTW = For the Win
FTL = For the Lose
There's also the lovely QFT - "Quoted for Truth".
Someone's been playing too much WoW...
(WoW = World of Warcraft)
Is there heaven? Is there Hell? Is that a Tuna Melt I smell?-Primus
Why not? Do you think an industry that screws it's clients and treats it's customers like criminals would care about their lawyers? If one of them gets caught, the people who ordered, "win any way you can," will be the first to repudiate them, "Bad buzz Bob. You know how it goes, you're fired."
I'm not sure I buy an industry lawyer telling a 15 year old girl he wouldn't have a case unless she lied.
Why not? They don't have any evidence to begin with, what makes you think they won't create the details by threats? The fine article said he threatened the witness with all the costs of the case and that the costs would get greater unless she burnt her friend and capped the friends losses at $4,000. If you can believe a 15 year old girl was talking to the RIAA thug without a lawyer, you had better believe the thug had his way with her.
The results are what you see, the case is shit and has blown up in their face. Obviously, the thug has screwed up.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
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>
What can the {MP|RI}AA take from some Sudanese farmer's kid for downloading the latest N'Stync single? For that matter, what court will exercise jurisdiction for this?
Having said that, why do I have the creeping feeling that this is all going to end very badly?
FTW is "For The Win". Common enough in MMOGs and message boards these days. It's normally used sarcastically.
Some common uses and translations.
"Inc four a Shissar Guardian FTW!" == "I am running at you with four NPCs that can easily kill us. I suck"
"w00t, [Flimsy Chain Pants] FTW!" == "Wow, some really crappy pants"
"Godwin FTW" == "That idiot just compared someone to Hitler. Discussion over, he loses. Jackass"
.sig: Now legally binding!
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.
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."
I agree. This story doesn't pass the BS-test. The laywer wouldn't even need to coerce her. All he'd have to do is promise that if she'd "play ball" that she'd get to have a lunch with Britney and the girl would willingly lie on the stand.
Isn't that the whole point of this filing?
That's fieling.
How many can you afford?
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.
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.
"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
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.
Hey, that dead grandmother was illegally listening to downloaded mp3s! Copyright laws apply for a good 70 years after the death of the artist -- the law says nothing about the death of the listener. What, you think some grandma gets a free ride just because she committed her crimes in the afterlife?
This all has to do with monopoly and price fixing. They are looking at everything from patent law (was very briefly involved in preparing a definition of terms in the patent as pertains to todays IT environment and market - it nauseated me after a while and I dropped it). They cant figure out how to lock in/down the net market in the manner they have on the brick and morter side of things.
One of their prevalent and most pervasive tactics has been via the courts and legislature. They are trying to pass laws and using the my lawyer is bigger than youre lawyer tactic on common citizens that may or may not be guilty of pirating. Thats not the issue. The issue is to control the market in the same/similar manner they have previously.
They also run their organization in a similar manner that is observed in organized crime - that being many layers of fall guys to plow through before you get to the guys really calling the shots.
What I do find surprising is that people may be surprised by this so-called revelation. From Payola to price-fixing to ripping off their own artisans with alarming regularity this is nothing new in the slightest. What is new is that fact that the RIAA and its affiliates see to be off their game to a fair degree. Its slipping away from them and their outmoded execs are still living with illusions of grandeur evoked from the time before digital.
They want control of the market. They want to tell you what music you like and how much youre fork out for this. There was no real competition before the net and the digital area. Pair this with the advent of the fully functional digital studio and the plethora of Indy record labels spawning forth with a far more viable net market strategy than the RIAA has and one might get a sense as to what extent the RIAA is actually at odds with its own market.
They already admitted that CDR's are a bigger threat than P2P.
Except there's a special word for that kind of lying, it's called "perjury." They send you to pound-you-up-the-ass federal penetentiaries for that. The only kind of "attention" her lying would get her is the kind you see in certain "womens' prison" themed movies on late-night Skinemax.
A lawyer tells a 15 year old girl that she has got to stick with her false statements because if she doesn't, he doesn't have a case?
That doesn't even make sense to me. "You can't change your story because if you do I can't hurt you!" Does that sound like it would motivate anyone into sticking to their original story?
I could be wrong but something doesn't add up here.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
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!
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.
You mean like MS?
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_.
IANAL, but I pay plenty of them. A lawyer is an officer of the court. Solicitation of perjury by an officer of the court is some serious shit. If this young lady is credible and there is some corroborating evidence, we just might see an RIAA lawyer disbarred and jailed. Like the parent article writer, I am cynical enough to doubt it will happen, but yes, we can dream.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
Thanks for clearing that up. I always assumed it was "Fut The Wuck."
And before you ask, no, it didn't make any sense to me at the time either.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
This is from a group who does not want you to do illegal pirating but has no problems with its members being involved in payola to boost sales of their doggy artists, trust me I use the term artist very loosely and to also rip off these artists with very one sided contracts and are involved in price fixing the digital downloads they never wanted. They refuse to go after the real cause of their loss of profits, those who mass copy and sell their product.
Let's face it, the RIAA and its members had a very sweet deal. The made boat loads of money from album from artists who one had one or two decent songs on an album but you were stuck buying the whole thing. Add to this the one sided contracts, the cocaine used to grease the disc jockeys to play their crap. They had a good thing going and here comes digital music to spoil the party.
The people who made buggy whips probably felt the same way when that evil automobile started catching on with the public. Just imagine what would happen if someone started a digital only label and sold their songs for only 49 cents and gave most of that to the artist. Make the band responsible for their own advertising, the label would just make sure that the music got to the popular music download sites and took care of the transactions. Hey.....I just may patent that idea!
Consumer digital music started in a blissful age, with the wonderful CD standard rapidly replacing the mishmash of cassettes, vinyl LPs and singles on the market. At the same time, the music video industry was booming, and perhaps the number one threat to recorded music was actually the taping of music videos with VCRs.
But the CD eliminated that threat quickly. It was a very attractive technology. It was durable and convenient. Did not wear out easily. Was an industry standard. High quality audio. Consumers embraced it. Companies promised that when CDs became popular, the price would drop sharply. But it never did. The miraculous CD technology inspired consumers and made them trust recording industry PR.
And why not believe them? There was a massive catalog of still popular 80s pop music to be digitally re-mastered and released. Or 60s and 70s stuff for some. Current music was still innovating rapidly and diversifying. Presentation and quality was often paramount, with elaborate box sets and and many recordings that were actually meticulously re-mastered to improve on the original. Not just pushed through a processor and "converted."
The main way of piracy of CDs was to use a CD-boombox or component system to record the CD to tape. Most audiophiles would want to listen to the original CD, and not bother taping (especially as they would demand expensive metal tapes for their copies). So most piracy was the shitty-quality boombox, and this just served as marketing for the CD version. Probably the main threat to CDs was from the Walkman - but that was neutralized very quickly (Sony's influence, perhaps?). Portable CD-walkmen were released very quickly, and were often cheaper than hi-fi component players, and price competitive with a high-end cassette-based Sony Walkman.
Then CD burners came along, but the technology was quite esoteric and expensive at first. Blank media was expensive and authoring software rare. But it got the industry's attention, and the rumblings of the anti-digital crusade began in earnest. The honeymoon period with CDs was over. The industry took them for granted, because they were entrnched. When only a few years ago they were trumpeting the "freedom" of the CD medium.
By the time CD burners became common, and the blank media cheap - a new threat was arising. So they never really started the battle on CD copying in earnest before they saw the threat of MP3s and the internet. then the shit really hit the fan, and the mass started really swirling.
Napster. Oh original Napster, you cheeky devil. Don't think I have to elaborate on Napster and the resulting clusterfuck on Slashdot.
So, fast forward a little. before the iPod, there was iTunes. This was not something that made the record labels happy. I'm not sure what prior negotiations, if any, Apple had with the RIAA before launching iTunes. But they went ahead with their "Rip, Mix, Burn" campaign. At the time Napster was floundering legally, and was doomed. So the RIAA, having defeated one opponent, felt that Apple must be the new threat.
So, "Rip, Mix Burn" was attacked for supporting piracy. Apple tries its best to be diplomatic (even though they may have done this to ruffle some feathers) and gets into negotiations with the RIAA over how to legitimize iTunes and Apple's music strategy.
So then the iPod comes out, with the "don't steal music" stickers to cover Apple's ass. But the criticisms keep mounting, and the industry at large sees this new device as a piracy threat. Competing hardware manufacturers are pissed at the iPod stealing all the attention. Significant corporate propaganda campaigns are launched against the iPod. But people keep buying them.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
Even the mere fact that people make jokes about this just illustrates how fucked up our society is. We ought to be marching around with torches and pitchforks, stringing up the unethical lawyers and fixing the problem, not making jokes about it! We (as a society) SUCK!!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
some people have suggested that album sales are off by seven percent because of the RIAA tactics scaring away customers. i can't speak for everyone, of course, but i can say that is definitely the reason i buy fewer albums. i used to buy, say, an album every week or two -- maybe thirty a year, or forty -- and now i buy maybe two or three a year. it's not worth it! what i want is to pay for music and have it in a free medialess format (MP3). since that isn't available, i am forced to either go without music (which i consider unacceptable) or to "steal" music by downloading it in the format i want (which i consider less unacceptable.)
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
That's not a problem at all. Radio stations are a part of the old establishment, and they wan't the old business model to stay as much as the labels do.
One is that many musicians know how to sing or strum a guitar, but asking them to operate a computer or even a mixing console might be going a bit far. I know it isn't rocket science, but it still is technical.
You have a point. But consider the advent of the digital age to a guitarist. Used to be that you used stomp boxes to modify you sound - then the multiFX rackmount dsp devices - this was technical but guitarist not only adapted but embraced this new advent. It is more about understanding the bigger picture today. Sure it is one thing to just be a talented player (or singer) and another to be familiar to the more technical end. I guess it all boils down to how fervently rightbrained one might happen to be. Talent will rise and mediocracy will fade away.
Two is that many a person who can operate a mixing console hasn't half an ear for mixing. It really is a different skill from singing or playing an instrument in a modern band. Sure, it is really just general musicianship to be able to blend your part in with everyone else, but since the advent of mixing consoles in modern bands it seems to be a dying art...
Once again, this is a matter of audio engineering vs musicianship. Yes, you are correct in your assertion that there are those with little real musicianship (e.g. player/singer) and those that construct songs purely from preformated samples. But the end result is producing music that is both listenable and marketable. Just as the RIAA has to adjust their focus, so do the musicians. It is one thing to just be a stellar player and likewise this holds for being a competent sound engineer. The fact of the matter, in order to be successful, the modern musician must be both an artisan and, to a larger extent, an engineer. This will work itself out over time. The bottomline again is what does the music sound like - people generally do not care how the music was made. They just care about whether or not it is something they want to listen to and are not forced to pay 20 bucks just to listen to two songs they like. And those that can run a mixing console but have not half an ear for mixing wont be around very long - theyre two sides of the same coin.
Three is that even if you do end up with a really nice CD you still need to be able to bribe somebody to play it over the air...
Who said anything about airplay. It is becoming swiftly outmoded. Remember that the RIAA affiliates and the Radio stations are part and parcel all part of the same industry machine (can you say Clear Channel?). Let us look at things from a more current perspective. I have enough songs to fill, lets say, 2 CD projects. I use P2P networks and indy web portals to showcase 2 or 3 of my songs. I let you dl them for free... gratis, no charge, spread it among your friends (pleeaassee!). Now you like my song and notice that you can preview the rest of my works. If you like what you hear you can dl them at somewhere around a buck a song (and yes there is always a risk of my stuff being pirated - welcome to the world). With 250 mil in the U.S. and a like amount in the E.U. (not to mention the rest of the connected world) and we have some prospect for potential sales. If I get one in a thousand to buy one song how much money do you think Ill make? ALOT!!!!!! So screw Payola and Clear Channel - this is just another face of the RIAA and one of the other reason they are scared witless. If radio station become all but obsolete just think about all the advertising revenue that Clear Channel and the RIAA and affilitates lose. This all plays into the bigger picture. And also consider those pressuring the RIAA members to get a handle on this - one sector that comes swiftly to mind is all those record stores. Tower Records hayday is fading and they are squirming as well - their market model is crumbling.
Once again, this is about a fundamental shift in the market and if the Laissez-faire market were to be let lose without intervention I garner that the RIAA affiliates would be applying for bankruptcy protection - the people have decided sometime ago and if not for the pervasive tactics of both the RIAA and the politicians they bribes this would not be the issue it is today IMHO.