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!
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.
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
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
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.
The sperm cell has a one in ten-million chance of eventually becoming a human being!
learning which companies do support RIAA. Let them know what is RIAA doing so that they can do some image-issues calculus.
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.
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...)
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.
Except the 15 year old made it quite clear that the lawyer solicited testimony he knew to be untrue. That's suborning perjury, generally a felony and always, always grounds for disbarrment.
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.
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
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?
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!
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_.
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.