RIAA Bullies Witnesses Into Perjury 385
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?'"
Good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
If Im not mistaken (Score:3, Insightful)
label lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop consuming RIAA product! (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
This sounds like a job for.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't this behaviour approved by the ABA? (Score:2, Insightful)
15 year old witness? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [riaa.com]
All your dreams come true. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, I'm curious . . . (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
RIAA's problem is not file-sharing (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Hardly surprising... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:all for $4000 (Score:3, Insightful)
Cue indignant rant from an attorney /.er who's convinced it's only the corrupt, fallen state of the capitalists in this country which allows lawyers to act against their true nature of liberalism and prevents them from the pursuit of the public good.
Well, while I am no expert on British legal history, I will tell you that Jonathan Swift certainly believed in the statement,
In Gulliver's Travels book 4, Gulliver sees a Yahoo [wikipedia.org] find a pretty stone. Another Yahoo comes along and tries to take it away from him. Struggle ensues, and it appears to be a stalemate - but then a third Yahoo comes along and runs away with the pretty stone. Gulliver compares it to a legal struggle he had while in Britain and concludes that the third must be a Yahoo lawyer.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that all lawyers are good or all lawyers are slime. But nobody in their right mind would contradict me when I say that a lot of the people who go to law school do so because they really like money.
I agree (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:So where's the problem? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not perjury. (Score:5, Insightful)
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
The RIAA's problem is Robert Heinlein (Score:5, Insightful)
"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*
Re:all for $4000 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, let's find out as much personal and private information we can about these so called lawyers. Then we'll get our torches [wikipedia.org] and pay them a little visit! Because we all know how much they deserve it, right?
They might not be doing the world a service, I'd probably call it a disservice. But whatever they're doing does not justify the type of behavior you described in your post. Which imo could quite possibly turn into vigilantism (ignoring the fact that /. crowd is not very pro-active* most of the time).
You simply do not want to go around and personally attack people (no, not even lawyers), this won't help your case and might even have an adverse effect.
If I misinterpreted your wording then I apologize. You did indeed state "nothing illegal", but your words seemed to imply otherwise.
* I don't think this is a real word, but I'm too lazy to find out.
Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
But you forget Papasan... The lawyer chose to accept the invalid case to begin with meaning that he's not concerned with his social responsbility. He's only interested in making money. A lot of moronic dorks would say that making money is all he should be concerned with. But they'd be wrong and immoral to believe that. Therefore he deserves to go down with the ship (the RIAA). Like I said in my earlier post in this story, he should be one of those floating down the river with a knife in his back since he failed to do what is right for society. Choosing what's good for one's own individual situation is not moral or good. It's simply selfish and wrong.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:1, Insightful)
Currupt/evil people do currupt/evil things regardless of who's in power.
Now I don't think any of it is related, but one could argue that with all the corporate curruption of the 90's (Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, Tyco), no one started getting caught until the Republicans took over.
In your face!
Does this make sense? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Wait for Corroboration (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Ethics anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, lawyers trot out the same old bullshit rationalization all the time: "we owe our client the best representation we can provide". The problem is, it frequently becomes just that-- purely a rationalization. Working "both sides of the fence", as lawyers often do, has a tendency to reduce the system in their minds to a game. "Ethics" become a list of rules to be weaseled around rather than a code of conduct based on personal and/or professional morals. The rationalization comes from the willingness to engage in dishonest behavior because "the other side's lawyer will be doing it too". Doubtless there are some who aren't like that, but the vast majority of the lawyers I have dealt with (some of them close relatives of mine) are astounding moral relativists who proudly regale listeners with tales of their greatest feats of dirty trickery. My own cousin (attorney for a large hotel chain) has boastfully admitted to courtroom behavior so underhanded that he wouldn't be out of place on the dock at Nuremberg. I have met only two lawyers who were truly honest, moral men, and both of them quit practicing law to be accountants because winning cases required abandoning their personal ethics.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:All your dreams come true. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, nullify; despite bulling by courts, juries can nullify a law for a particular case if they feel the law is unjust or immoral, even though the culprit is guilty as hell.
Why is anyone surprised at this? (Score:4, Insightful)
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!
A great swirling mass of shit and confusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither the RIAA nor the MAFIA needs 'good PR'.
The continued success of their shakedowns depend
upon people being afraid.
Strange, isn't it, that I have to type the keyword
'iniquity' to make this post.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RIAA embarrassments?? (Score:3, Insightful)
IAAL, and you're probably not quite right. In most (if not all) Australian jurisdictions a plaintiff can usually discontinue (not dismiss) an action it brought as of right up until trial, however the discontinuance gives the defendant the right to an award of its costs incurred to date.
A plaintiff who wishes to discontinue once the trial has commenced can usually only do so with the court's leave, as a plaintiff who discontinues still has the ability to re-commence (again, usually only with the court's leave) and in most cases justice will require, given the late stage of the proceedings, that the defendant be given the protection of a judgment as final resolution of the disputes that are the subjects of the proceedings.
In my home jurisdiction (Queensland) the rules are even more strict, and only allow the plaintiff to discontinue as of right up until being served with the defence of one of the defendants to the proceeding (rule 304(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 [qld.gov.au]).
You're also not quite right with your analogy to criminal procedure. A trial judge will not usually allow the prosecution to enter a nolle prosequi and take back the indictment prior to a jury verdict if its case falls apart at trial, since in such circumstances the accused should be given the protection of double jeopardy.
I'm not sure how the US Federal rules work, but there's no reason why there shouldn't be some restrictions on when a plaintiff can discontinue.
on the tangent of album sales (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:...I'm waiting for big artists... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yet another piece on the pile. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure I buy the parent's entire premise either (his economics seem a bit off) but I don't see a problem with his basic concept. First, not that many American jobs would be elimnated by such a switch. Manufacturing is presumably largely automated, but regardless is almost entirely done overseas. A few distribution jobs may be lost, but most distributors handle more than one product line, so losing one won't be catastrophic. Retail would be the hardest hit, so we'll probably lose a bunch of minimum wage video store clerk jobs, but the overall economic impact would be relatively minor.
Second, contrary to what the RIAA wants you to believe, it's not the government's job to prevent people's jobs from being obsoleted. Technology advances, and unfortunately, that occasionally means that old jobs are no longer needed. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the government has no obligation to the people, only that it's obligation is a broad one, and stifling innovation to protect a single industry group is not part of that obligation.