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?'"
Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
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
all for $4000 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
The sad part... (Score:1, Interesting)
Coercion? (Score:3, Interesting)
Their house of cards is collapsing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Rejoice, slashdot nerds and trolls. The time of revenge may finally be at hand.
Re:The sad part... (Score:5, Interesting)
Bad guys ?! (Score:5, Interesting)
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...
So where's the problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
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>
Re:Coercion? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ;)
*evil grin* (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:all for $4000 (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure that the law firm was paid much more than $4000 to win this case illegally.
How do you reconcile these two statements?
Re:Not perjury. (Score:1, Interesting)
Surely, as a minor, she wouldn't be able to take an oath to tell the truth and was therefore not under any legal obligation not to lie (of course, if it turns out that she did then all her evidence would have to be thrown out...)
Therefore, is the lawyer Subourning perjury, since the perjury couldn't have happened in the first place?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Who cares? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which RIAA moron thought this would result in good PR down the road? Stuff like this will always come out.
Your kidding right? It is all about numbers, extortion, PR and hope people cave in. Lets face it that this is extortion tax. RIAA tax. Get 200,000 people just to pay a $200 (pseudo) fine and that equates to $40,000,000. How many people can afford a lawyer and time off from work to defend themselves for $200? It is corporate extortion against the public. These legal parasites don't care about families.
The courts should hammer the RIAA where they have no case, or cannot prove their accusations or are otherwise negligent in their behavior. RIAA are baby eaters and worse, professional extortionists backed by a legal system with no guts.
They be glad I am not sitting on a jury. If they could not prove their case I would award expenses plus punitive damages that would make them take a second look while they spin uncontrollably. Treating the general public like criminals is not going to solve anything.
The fact of the mater is that the technology today allows for rapid distribution of media and entertainment that the established mega monopolies can no longer control. So like prohibition, the monopolistic control of the entertainment industry must change. Allow movies to be legally downloaded for $1 and the block buster might net $200M in a weekend without the middleman and retail costs. And it does not require Sony/BMG, Arista or any other RIAA memebr company.
Resistance is futile, the Internet will roll over the RIAA in time.
Re:Wait for Corroboration (Score:1, Interesting)
As for the USA, check out where we've (including the president) admitted to illigal wiretaps. DESPITE there being a special court setup for secret wiretaps in cases like these. In fact you can go ahead and start the wiretap, and inform that special court a few days AFTER you start if its time critical. And if that court denies you, you can CONTINUE to wiretap while you appeal. There's really no excuse for not taking advantage of that specially created court for these situations. Very sloppy, and odds are if we do get anything useful, it wont be able to be used in criminal cases because of this "oops."
Quote"FISA created a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (the "FISA Court") made up of federal district judges, to review just such types of surveillance."
http://counterterror.typepad.com/the_counterterro
Oh and check out how many wiretaps of ANY kind have been denied in last couple years (especially the special patriot act ones). Its an incredibly small percentage. So its not like we had the excuse of (but it might have been denied!). We also dont have the excuse of "that specia FISA court might have leaked it!" because they all have some of the highest security clearances.
If you ask me, this is FAR more serious than some books being checked out. I've been on Bush's side for a lot of things, but this is over the top.
Re:Yet another piece on the pile. (Score:5, Interesting)
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_.
Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (Score:1, Interesting)
So what you're saying, is we should stop violating copyright laws, and the RIAA will stop suing people for violating these laws? I really think you're onto something, man. Good job.
(I almost wish I had a
Oh, and yea, vote with your dollars, for sure! Always a good principle. RIAA member or no.
Invalidate their tatictics? (slightly off topic) (Score:3, Interesting)
That didn't work (Score:4, Interesting)
What it's actually about (Score:3, Interesting)
There is no justice in courtrooms. There is winning and losing and making money. Justice sometimes is coincidental with winning and losing.
From the Full Article (Score:4, Interesting)
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?
Re:...I'm waiting for big artists... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:All your dreams come true. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:All your dreams come true. (Score:4, Interesting)
When it does happen, it's pretty sweet justice.
Case in point, the two attorneys working with Al Sharpton on the Tawana Brawley [wikipedia.org] hoax were soon disbarred.
Costs and copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bingo! It's a shame that the American public, of which I'm a member, don't know/understand more about jury nullification. It amazes me how many people I know who complain about unjust laws and how "they'd make it different" and then they try to do whatever they can to get out of jury duty. Not I. I very much look forward to the day that I can get onto a jury with the possibility of invoking my right of nullification if indeed the case calls for it (for example, just about any "victimless" crime).
Unfortunately, these RIAA cases are civil (RIAA suing an individual) and in general, verdicts do not need to be unanimous and the evidence does NOT need to show wrong-doing "beyond a reasonable doubt", so it's a little harder for one person on the jury to make it right.
-S