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?'"

RIAA embarrassments??

[brokencomputer]

Wow, I can't decide if this might be more embarrassing than when they sued a stone-dead grandma. [betanews.com]

ouch

[hostingreviews]

So the RIAA bullied a little girl? Unthinkable. They would NEVER [boston.com], ever EVER [theregister.co.uk] do something so... okay so they do.

Re:Coercion?

[EvanED]

I believe there are times when lawyers can make statements. Probably if something is not in dispute. For instance, in testimony a lawyer can have earlier testimony read back and say "Freddy Freddinson earlier said this. Do you agree?" and stuff like that. Probably this was something like that, and if he was more precise he would have said something like "And you say this isn't true. And you felt that..."

Though it does sound like the actual question is leading... rules must be different for depositions than for testimony...

Re:Bad guys ?!

[EvanED]

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...

And cops and prosecutors often present questionable evidence, lie about how it was obtained to keep it in, etc. in order to get a conviction. That's certainly wrong. But does that mean that most of the people they're trying to get a conviction against isn't a 'bad guy'?

Just 'cause one side is in the wrong doesn't mean that the other side is in the clear.

it does mean that of all the people sued for downloading copyrighted materials, SOME were "bad guys", which IMHO isn't true...

And, unless the RIAA has a 0% hit rate of offenders (probably almost impossible), the author (and I, to a large extent) disagrees with you. There's no slip of the tongue.

Re:RIAA embarrassments??

[Anonymous Coward]

At least suing dead grandma isn't illegal like "contributing to the deliquency of a minor."

Re:Coercion?

[pgpckt]

Q. It wasn't true. And you felt that Mr. Krichbaum was trying to get you to say something that wasn't true?

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:

Q. -- Jim and yourself had ripped the music off?
A. Yes.
Q. And that wasn't true, was it?
A. Correct.
Q. Correct that it wasn't true?
A. It wasn't true, yes.
Q. It wasn't true. And you felt that Mr. Krichbaum was trying to get you to say something that wasn't true?
A. Yes.

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).

Not perjury.

[mmell]

Suborning perjury. There's a difference.

Just don't ask me what the difference is - they both sound like "lieing" to me.

You may be interested into..

[elpapacito]

learning which companies [riaa.com] do support RIAA. Let them know what is RIAA doing so that they can do some image-issues calculus.

Re:Wow

[fohat]

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)

Re:Stop consuming RIAA product!

[Maxo-Texas]

There are many sources of music not associated with Riaa.

I suggest you check out magnatune.com as a start.

Another great place with riaa associated music that irritates Riaa is allofmp3.com.

But you're right- most music that is ethically* under copyright DOES suck.

* I draw the line at the new "forever" copyright laws they are buyi. er.. getting passed.

Re:Hmmmm....

[adam613]

Why bother with any of the conspiracy/delinquency of a minor charges that may or may not stick? Subordination of perjury on its own is a disbarrable offense.

That list is inaccurate

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Hey, I'm curious . . .

[rubycodez]

the obvious answer is to take their $100 laptop away. Then there's always imprisonment, maiming or execution for stealing in some parts of the world. What court would do it, why the kind you can buy for a little money in many third world shitholes.

Don't boycott the entire music industry...

[necro2607]

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 [magnetbox.com] 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.

Re:not suprising

[crusher-1]

The music industry is a Filthy business.

Im forty five years old and have been a musician since I was 13. I have met and had several friends and colleagues that have had fairly lucrative careers with RIAA affiliates. But as of today those people have essentially retired. They made their money and got out. Why get out? Because those that one must deal with on a day to day basic on the music industry are some of the sleaziest and unethical people you may ever have the displeasure of meeting. Talk about needing to watch your back. And dont by any means ever ever sign anything without having a lawyer look at it - thats how they get the young ones with talent (and a lawyer that is not known by or worked for the RIAA affiliates if possible).

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.

Why are they still suing over P2P

[Gary Destruction]

They already admitted [theregister.co.uk] that CDR's are a bigger threat than P2P.

Re:RIAA embarrassments??

[LexNaturalis]

IANAL, but since this is a civil action, the plaintiff can, at any time, drop their case against the defendant, which is the same thing as dismissing the case. The language might be slightly different, but it is within the plaintiff's rights to drop the case entirely without asking a judge's permission. You CAN ask a judge to dismiss a case againt YOU, but you don't have to ask the judge if you're the one bringing the case to begin with.

It's just like a district attorney or federal attorney can drop criminal charges against a person without asking the judge's permission. The only time a judge is involved is if there is a plea bargain, in which case the judge has to approve the plea bargain. So in this (limited) case, the RIAA is very much within their rights and the law. That's not to say their other tactics and actions are lawful or ethical.

Re:Hmmmm....

[crmartin]

Specifically, he should be indicted and disbarred for "subornation of perjury" [lectlaw.com].

Just figured you'd want to know.

Re:Hardly surprising...

[digitac]

Tried and failed. RICO requires violence or the threat thereof. See here [theregister.co.uk]. Unless someone can catch one of their lawyers threatening physical violence to get someone to settle, RICO is out. ::Digitac

Re:Not perjury.

[TubeSteak]

Ms. Granado went on to testify that Mr. Krichbaum had urged her to provide false and inaccurate testimony with regard to the entire portion of her original testimony implicating the Nelsons

my impression is that the girl never reached the witness stand

Original Testimony. She had already made false statements to the court.

I don't know there's a crime here

Try contributing-to-the-delinquency-of-a-minor. That's a (4th degree) felony charge right there. I also thought suborning purjory was a felony charge too. Nobody likes witness tampering.

This lawyer is fucked. His first obligation is not to his client, but to the legal process. I see disbarment in his future.

Perjury

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

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.

Re:all for $4000

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I doubt that the recording industry had much to do with coersion
If you would have read more about the case then you would have seen that the RIAA lawyer actually wanted to drop the case against the daycare owners because the first statement of the girl was false. He told the defendants lawyer that even though he did not want to continue with the litigation his employer did. What I am saying is that the lawyer exhibited some sense of ethics so it seems to me that the coercion had to be at the very least ordered by the RIAA.
Here is an excerpt from another site with more on the subject:

49. Upon conclusion of the deposition, Plaintiffs' national counsel Matthew Miller conferred with Defendants' counsel about his ethical obligations as a practitioner regarding the use of Ms. Granado's original statements and the impact of those statements on the case. At that time, Mr. Miller insisted that he was ethically obligated to withdraw the complaint against Mr. and Mrs. Nelson and would do so promptly.
50. On December 20, 2005, Mr. Miller informed Defendants' counsel despite his ethical obligations as a practitioner his clients had instructed him to continue to pursue their claims against Mr. and Mrs. Nelson notwithstanding Ms. Granado's recent deposition testimony.

If you want to read the whole transcript search for "The Nelsons Sue RIAA Attorneys in Michigan case, Motown v. Nelson" at the following site: http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com [blogspot.com]

Re:Hmmmm....

[javachip]

"But it doesn't help so long as the story's limited to Slashdot" Oh, that's a good one! What, do you think Slashdot generates stories like this? Nah, they simply refer to what other folks are already talking about. Amazingly, this time they even did the referring on the same calendar day. That's like a zero day reference, which is quite speedy these days at Slashdot.

Re:That list is inaccurate

[metricmusic]

Here's their say on that from 2000:


  Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:14:23 -0700
From: Fat Wreck Chords [e-mail]
To: Adam Fogler [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Fat Wreck Chords a member of the RIAA? Say it ain't so!

Adam,
We our not part of the RIAA. We are a label that uses RED (though not exclusively) as a distributor, hence maybe that is why our name appears on the list. Still we've never signed anything with the RIAA. That being said, FAT WRECK CHORDS does believe in copyright and is against piracy.

Now on a side note, I hope you are running your computer on LINUX or some other open source software?

floyd


http://ask.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6826&thres hold=1&commentsort=0&tid=141&tid=4&mode=thread&cid =882333 [slashdot.org]

Re:Hmmmm....

[Anonymous Coward]

Jury nullification doesn't cancel the law for all future cases. It just means that this particular jury refuses to convict the defendant according to the existing law. The next jury will operate under the same laws as the first, not that set minus the law the first jury didn't like.

That's NOT funny!

[mrchaotica]

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!!

Re:Hmmmm....

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Jury ?

These are not criminal trials, so there is no jury.

Re:Hmmmm....

[crawling_chaos]

And, no, they have no business knowing what happens during deliberation.

But if there is one juror who does not believe in nullification and reports your behavior to the judge, a mistrial will be declared. Furthermore, if the judge asked you questions about following his instructions to the letter during voir dire, as the judge did of all potential jurors the last time I was on jury duty, you are likely to find yourself back at the courtroom -- in the defendant's chair on perjury and criminal contempt of court charges. All it takes is a single defector, which makes it a rather elegant example of the Prisoner's Dilemna.

Re:Hmmmm....

[neonsam]

It is quite common to have a jury trial in a civil case in the US. Only if both sides agree will there be a "bench trial" meaning that no jury is used. I work for a law firm, and have been directly involoved in multiple civil trials with a jury.