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?'"
Wow, I can't decide if this might be more embarrassing than when they sued a stone-dead grandma.
The Television Wiki
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.
This is amazing. Every time you think that it can't get worse, it does. There are people on Slashdot right now saying that the RIAA are baby-eaters, and it's getting harder and harder to resist taking it to the extreme.
Which RIAA moron thought this would result in good PR down the road? Stuff like this will always come out.
"MY APOCALYPTIC TENOR HAS NOT BEEN DISPELLED!" - T-Rex, qwantz.com
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
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?
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.
learning which companies do support RIAA. Let them know what is RIAA doing so that they can do some image-issues calculus.
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
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.
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 are people on Slashdot right now saying that the RIAA are baby-eaters
That's a completely unfair allegation. I'm sure that very few members of the RIAA eat babies on a regular basis.
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?
Do you think an industry that screws it's clients and treats it's customers like criminals would care about their lawyers?
The first industry I thought of was I read that sentence was prostitution.
CATS/Diebold '08- All your vote are belong to us!
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_.
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.
Actually, they would eat MORE babies, but they can't afford to because they are losing so much revenue because of (fill in the blank of you favorite file sharing client).
Nitewing '98
Everything works...in theory.