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
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Which RIAA moron thought this would result in good PR down the road? Stuff like this will always come out.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
That's a completely unfair allegation. I'm sure that very few members of the RIAA eat babies on a regular basis.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
Your illiterate right?
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Informative)
These are not criminal trials, so there is no jury.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
The Association of Baby Eaters just called...they're thinking of sueing you for making that libelous false association.
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]
That list is inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)
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:That list is inaccurate (Score:3, Funny)
Re:That list is inaccurate (Score:5, Informative)
Date: Thu, 03 Aug 2000 14:14:23 -0700
From: Fat Wreck Chords mailbag@fatwreck.com
To: Adam Fogler afogler@---.---.edu
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&thre
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:All your dreams come true. (Score:5, Funny)
The first industry I thought of was I read that sentence was prostitution.
Re:All your dreams come true. (Score:4, Funny)
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:All your dreams come true. (Score:3, 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.
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Hmmmm.... (Score:4, Informative)
Just figured you'd want to know.
Perjury (Score:3, Informative)
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
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:Ethics anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
That's NOT funny! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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
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:all for $4000 (Score:5, Insightful)
RIAA embarrassments?? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:RIAA embarrassments?? (Score:5, Funny)
I could have sworn that you ask a judge to dismiss a case, you don't just do it yourself.
Re:RIAA embarrassments?? (Score:4, Informative)
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: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 lea
Let's be fair now (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Good - Oh Gee, Maybe Here??? (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, gee, could you be looking for this? [blogspot.com]
If Im not mistaken (Score:3, 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
Re:Not perjury. (Score:4, Informative)
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.
ouch (Score:5, Informative)
An unethical lawyer???? (Score:5, Funny)
Coercion? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Coercion? (Score:3, Informative)
Though it does sound like the actual question is leading... rules must be different for depositions than
Re:Coercion? (Score:5, Informative)
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).
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 ;)
Re:Coercion? (Score:3, Funny)
Their house of cards is collapsing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Rejoice, slashdot nerds and trolls. The time of revenge may finally be at hand.
Re:Their house of cards is collapsing. (Score:3, Funny)
The worst part (Score:5, Funny)
This is nothing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is nothing (Score:3, Funny)
Only if they can sell it at a profit. Otherwise they'll just keep to their habit of grinding up their own artists for profit. [jdray.com]
Amazing... (Score:3, Funny)
RIAA shills, you're slipping. WTF do you think they're paying you for?
(MRC="disarm")
label lawyers (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re:Bad guys ?! (Score:3, Informative)
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 me
Re:Bad guys ?! Civil Disobedience, yes! (Score:4, Funny)
Civil disobedience. I like that thought. File downloading and sharing as protest. Protected First Amendment speech. Bring on the ACLU!
Wouldn't that be a W00t!
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?
Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Don't boycott the entire music industry... (Score:4, Informative)
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.
That didn't work (Score:4, Interesting)
This sounds like a job for.... (Score:5, Insightful)
15 year old witness? (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference between a lawyer and a sperm cell? (Score:5, Funny)
You may be interested into.. (Score:5, Informative)
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:So where's the problem? (Score:5, 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?
Re:Hey, I'm curious . . . (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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:...I'm waiting for big artists... (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Hardly surprising... (Score:3, Informative)
*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.
Why are they still suing over P2P (Score:3, Informative)
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.
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
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.
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.
Invalidate their tatictics? (slightly off topic) (Score:3, 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?
on the tangent of album sales (Score:3, Insightful)
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:The sad part... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
Some common uses and translations.
"Inc four a Shissar Guardian FTW!" == "I am running at you with four NPCs that can easily kill us. I suck"
"w00t, [Flimsy Chain Pants] FTW!" == "Wow, some really crappy pants"
"Godwin FTW" == "That idiot just compared someone to Hitler. Discussion over, he loses. Jackass"
Re:Wow (Score:3, Funny)
And before you ask, no, it didn't make any sense to me at the time either.
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.
Re:This is a surprise? (Score:3, Insightful)
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_.