Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

RIAA Bullies Witnesses Into Perjury

Zonk posted more than 8 years ago | from the talk-short dept.

The Courts 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?'"

cancel ×

385 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmmm.... (4, Interesting)

gbulmash (688770) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367211)

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."

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.... (5, Funny)

RedNovember (887384) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367256)

This is amazing. Every time you think that it can't get worse, it does. There are people on Slashdot right now saying that the RIAA are baby-eaters, and it's getting harder and harder to resist taking it to the extreme.

Which RIAA moron thought this would result in good PR down the road? Stuff like this will always come out.

Re:Hmmmm.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367514)

There are people on Slashdot right now saying that the RIAA are baby-eaters

That's a completely unfair allegation. I'm sure that very few members of the RIAA eat babies on a regular basis.

Re:Hmmmm.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367397)

How about we start naming this evil by its true name.

Everybody is thinking the Riaa is the bad guy. Take a look at who they are though, its Sony, Warner music, Walt Disney Records, EMI Records and so on. All the Riaa name is for is to make sure there wont be a newspaper headline saying something like "EMI Records sues granny" or something like that.

So no its not a rogue lawyer for a faceless organization. Its Sony, its EMI, its Disney and they are trying to not get their name dragged through the mud by hiding behind the name Riaa

Full list of members of the Riaa http://www.riaa.com/about/members/default.asp [riaa.com]

Please mod parent up... (-1, Troll)

andyb2083 (734615) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367475)

... I have no mod points today.

Thank you

That list is inaccurate (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367498)

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:That list is inaccurate (2, Funny)

Skye16 (685048) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367520)

He's right. Fat Wreck Chords may not be thrilled if you copy every CD they have without buying it, and I'm sure Fat Mike would call you a dick and spit on you or something, but that's pretty much as far as it would go. What does suing someone do for you? Not a whole lot but make you look like a money hungry bastard. Spitting on someone makes you look unclean and unprofessional, and let's face it, that's what "punk" is supposed to be about.

MOD PARENT UP +1 INSIGHTFUL (-1, Offtopic)

LionKimbro (200000) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367525)

This is something I hadn't heard about, or thought of before. Please mod the parent posting up.

All your dreams come true. (4, Insightful)

twitter (104583) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367409)

It would nice to see an RIAA lawyer disbarred and jailed. I seriously doubt it would happen

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.

I agree (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367449)

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:Hmmmm.... (2, Informative)

adam613 (449819) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367495)

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.

Re:Hmmmm.... (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367555)

Hmm, disbarment, or disbarment with incarceration, fines, and a criminal record. Hmm, decisions, decisions.

all for $4000 (4, Interesting)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367216)

The transcript of the deposition that followed this motion gives us a glimpse into exactly how far the recording industry is willing to go...


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 (2, Insightful)

happyemoticon (543015) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367445)

. . . that sounds like a lawyer trait to me . . .

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,

Win or lose, lawyers are the only ones who really win in court.

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.

Re:all for $4000 (2, Interesting)

Thuktun (221615) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367536)

I doubt that the recording industry had much to do with coersion. [...]
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 (4, Insightful)

pintomp3 (882811) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367569)

it's not the $4000, they can't afford to lose any cases. if they did, it would cause future defendants to stand up for their rights and not just be bullied into settling. their costs would skyrocket if each case was actually contested. right now it's a double bonus; they get thousands of $s out of ppl and scare a lot of ppl from downloading music.

RIAA embarrassments?? (5, Informative)

brokencomputer (695672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367221)

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

Re:RIAA embarrassments?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367352)

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

Re:RIAA embarrassments?? (5, Funny)

Transdimentia (840912) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367393)

What is even more embarassing is how the RIAA believes it IS the law: said RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy. "We will now, of course, obviously dismiss this case.

I could have sworn that you ask a judge to dismiss a case, you don't just do it yourself.

The sad part... (1, Interesting)

dcapel (913969) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367222)

The sad part is that they will probably get away with this. Just wave the greenbacks at Washington, and your woes go away...

Re:The sad part... (5, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367269)

Yes, the RIAA will probably get away with it. However, the landshark involved will, with luck, get disbarred and spend several years in the Graybar Hotel. Why? Because in order to convict the RIAA louses (Although calling one of them a louse is an insult to every louse that ever lived.) you'd have to prove that said louse knew in advance what was being done and approved of it. If all he or she did was tell the lawyer involved, "Win the case and I don't care how," that's not good enough. You'd have to prove either specific instructions or advance knowlege. Shame, really, but that's the way it works.

Good (4, Insightful)

Lord_Dweomer (648696) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367232)

I have to say, as much as I wish this stuff never happened...I'm kinda glad its unfolding the way it is. They're doing everything they can to be as overtly evil as possible. And all it does is piss off Americans more and more and more...and now its pissing off judges and lawyers.

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??? (3, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367331)

'd love to see someone make a website with info on the lawyers who represent them.

Oh, gee, could you be looking for this? [blogspot.com]

Re:Good - Oh , you meant THEIR (RIAA) Lawyers (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367367)

I'd love to see someone make a website with info on the lawyers who represent them.

Oh, gee, could you be looking for this?

Oh, you meant their (RIAA's) lawyers. I thought you wanted info on how the Good Guys were waging the Good Fight, showing how the bad lawyers can't even allege an actual crime (althought the judges keep letting them come back and try yet again).

Re:Good - Oh Gee, Maybe Here??? (1)

NewYorkCountryLawyer (912032) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367463)

These are their attorneys: http://www.shb.com/ [shb.com] They're a products liability firm. Its claim to fame is its representation of big tobacco companies in cases brought by the widows and orphans of their lung cancer victims.

Re:Good - Oh Gee, Maybe Here??? (1)

croddy (659025) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367590)

their site is running a little slow, but I can't find any information about this news using their search tool [shb.com]

If Im not mistaken (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367235)

Perjury in the US comes with a sentence of at least a few years in prison. Are we finally going to put some of these RIAA assholes where they belong?

Re:If Im not mistaken (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367250)

The RIAA didn't comitt perjury. Now, the laywers involved could lose their ability to practice law or something of the sort, however.

Not perjury. (2, Informative)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367372)

Suborning perjury. There's a difference.

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

Re:Not perjury. (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367535)

The difference is that if you commit perjury, you lie under oath. Lawyers are never under oath (unless not in their capacity as lawyer) so cannot commit perjury. (Maybe for opening or closing statements; I'm not sure what happens if they say something then. But most definitely NOT in an off-the-books meeting.)

Suborning perjury is if you either make or let someone lie. For instance, if a lawyer knows that if they call a witness that witness will lie, in my understanding they cannot call that witness, or at least can't ask about what they will lie about. Otherwise they are suborning perjury.

It seems that in this case the lawyers didn't even do that; my impression is that the girl never reached the witness stand. (If she did, then it would be suborning perjury.) Even assuming the girl is telling the truth, I don't know there's a crime here. It's certainly an ethical violation worthy of getting disbarred, but no tort and no crime.

IANAL

Can I.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367237)

Can I get a witness?

Sure! (2, Funny)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367481)

How many can you afford?

Those RIAA!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367240)

RIAA! I'll never forgive you for this.

ouch (5, Informative)

hostingreviews (941757) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367244)

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.

An unethical lawyer???? (5, Funny)

TheBogie (941620) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367247)

It just goes to show that 99% of lawyers give the rest of them a bad name.

Re:An unethical lawyer???? (1)

Crudely_Indecent (739699) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367264)

I thought your post was inaccurate until I read it again. BTW, I think that you're missing 3 decimal places...

Coercion? (2, Interesting)

brokencomputer (695672) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367251)

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.

Re:Coercion? (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367305)

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:Coercion? (1)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367340)

Defense: OBJECTION! Leading the witness, and badgering.

Judge: Sustained.

Re:Coercion? (1)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367391)

It's discovery. You can object, but the question usually still gets answered. The objected things get hammered out later.

Re:Coercion? (1)

TheHawke (237817) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367400)

Preferably with a 20lb housewrecking sledge upside the Plaintiff's head.

Re:Coercion? (5, Informative)

pgpckt (312866) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367354)

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).

Re:Coercion? (5, Interesting)

BrynM (217883) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367434)

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.
A group of old attorney friends of mine used to call it Matlocking: "Everything was going fine, until Nate started matlocking during the depo. I thought the court reporter was going to kill him after 20 minutes of typing everything twice". Kind of like monologueing in the incredibles.

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 ;)

Their house of cards is collapsing. (4, Interesting)

Spazntwich (208070) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367252)

In recent days, it seems like more and more stories about the RIAA royally fucking up are getting picked up by the major media outlets. All of this bad press will (hopefully) finally get the American populace aware of how bad these companies really are, and possibly mobilize the sloth-like public to actually do something about it.

Rejoice, slashdot nerds and trolls. The time of revenge may finally be at hand.

Re:Their house of cards is collapsing. (3, Funny)

Sofalover (920271) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367302)

What's wrong with this fucked up country of America, suing little girls because they did what every teen does and has always done record some music and share it. Be it 8 track tapes, casettes recorded from radio, MD's, CD's or mp3 the principle is the same. If we can see it or hear it, we can record it and share it. Now fuck right off RIAA you pillocks.

Re:Their house of cards is collapsing. (1)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367501)

Well bloody said!

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367259)

Theres no way a 15 year old girl could make up a story for attetion.

Don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA as much as the next geek.. but seriously people, the girls probaly lieing.

LIEING 15 YEARS FTW!

Re:Wow (1)

TallMatthew (919136) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367308)

Don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA as much as the next geek.. but seriously people, the girls probaly lieing.

Probaly lieing? Eh?

LIEING 15 YEARS FTW!

Where's C3PO?

Re:Wow (1)

Ira Sponsible (713467) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367319)

WTF is FTW?

Is that rot13 encoded or something?

Or have I been slacking on my TLAs?

FWIW the word is spelled 'lying'

Re:Wow (1)

born_to_live_forever (228372) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367371)

FTW: For The Win

Now you know.

Re:Wow (2, Informative)

fohat (168135) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367386)

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:Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367425)

FTW is old biker slang for Fsck The World.

Re:Wow (2, Funny)

technos (73414) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367436)

FTW is "For The Win". Common enough in MMOGs and message boards these days. It's normally used sarcastically.

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 - bad witness, equally bad spelling (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367414)

Don't get me wrong, I hate the RIAA as much as the next geek.. but seriously people, the girls probaly lieing.

If she is lieing[sic], which side is she lieing[sic] for? If she's lieing[sic], then the RIAA has no witnesses to the "crime" -- and no case! Isn't that the whole point of this filing?

Re:Wow - bad witness, equally bad spelling (2, Funny)

torino08 (934116) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367455)

Isn't that the whole point of this filing?

That's fieling.

The worst part (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367262)

Now they're suing the 15 year old for copyright infringement for reading their statement outloud in public.

This is nothing (5, Funny)

voice_of_all_reason (926702) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367265)

The RIAA would go to customers' houses, brutally murder them, and grind up the body as organ meat for third world countries if they could get away with it.

Re:This is nothing (2, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367348)

The RIAA would go to customers' houses, brutally murder them, and grind up the body as organ meat for third world countries if they could get away with it.

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... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367275)

sixteen comments so far and no industry shill has stepped up to defend them.

RIAA shills, you're slipping. WTF do you think they're paying you for?

(MRC="disarm")

Yet another piece on the pile. (0, Troll)

schenkzoola (780772) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367279)

Well, hopefully this will just add to the pile that makes the RIAA look like the dogs they are. It's cases like this that make me think that the RIAA is in it's death throes.

label lawyers (4, Insightful)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367282)

I used to work for one of the major record labels. The lawyers that were on staff were the kinds of people that partied way too hard and barely graduated from law school. If any of them were presenting the case, this wouldn't surprise me in the least. However, I would figure that the RIAA would have competent lawyers working for them. I guess maybe they don't.

Re:label lawyers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367483)

Doesn't that make sense? If you're a really good lawyer, wouldn't it stand to reason that you could make more money in a law firm?

My mom works for a lawyer that is barely smart enough to figure out which end of the spoon is the wide one. When I told my friend about it, his quip was that lawyers who graduate at the bottom of their class need jobs too ;)

Re:label lawyers (1)

BushCheney08 (917605) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367513)

Exactly. As far as I could tell, the staff lawyer's jobs consisted of taking boilerplate band contracts and changing the band names and a few dollar amounts.

Bad guys ?! (5, Interesting)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367292)

all they're doing is forcing the actual file sharers further underground where they're harder to find, which leads to the next round of lawsuits hitting an even lower ratio of bad guys to innocent people

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 ?! (2, Informative)

EvanED (569694) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367349)

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:Bad guys ?! (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367487)



ah, the old "well they must be guilty of SOMETHING" tact, well done.

Re:Bad guys ?! Civil Disobedience, yes! (3, Funny)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367385)

Remember, this is a war of rights... civil disobedience is a way of showing your discontentment with a law.

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!

Re:Bad guys ?! (1)

Have Blue (616) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367469)

It's not civil disobedience until your arrest is on the evening news. Until then, it's just a violation of the law and doesn't solve anything.

Re:Bad guys ?! (0)

Khyber (864651) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367484)

SOME were "bad guys", which IMHO isn't true...

Yea, that's why I see people runnign around fast food joints in the gheto selling bootleg mix albums off of MP3's they ripped from the net.. Yea, they're not bad guys. I'm just as much against the BS that gets spewed nowdays, but your BS is intolerable. At best, I'd wager 96% download and are not bad guys, but those other potential 4% are downloading so they can make their own profit without having the **AA getting in their way.

I'm sure a few other ./ people here can testify to witnessing this at least once, even if it's one of their own friends.

Civil disobedience? Hardly. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367562)

"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."

Um...yes you are one of the bad guys, along with the RIAA et al (and yes, people on both sides of the fence can be considered "bad"). Civil disobedience? Oh please! You're committing copyright infringement, that's not civil disobedience, that's copying something that you have no permission to copy! Try getting out on the streets and making a real protest against these big bad laws you disagree with. If you have a point other people will join you.

Don't bandy around the term "civil disobedience" to make yourself feel better about doing something illegal and being too lazy to show the powers that be that you don't like the fact that it *is* illegal.

Stop consuming RIAA product! (5, Insightful)

ShibaInu (694434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367294)

Since the RIAA is clearly an evil organization, I suggest that everyone stop purchasing music. And, stop downloading it as well.

Think about it, if no one even "illegally" downloaded music, the RIAA would go away in a big hurry. What would be worse for them, piracy or no one on earth giving a shit what they did?

Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (3, Insightful)

c0n0 (901224) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367420)

yeah, let's become a nation without music, that is doubleplusgood All we need is the telescreen ;)

Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367427)

So you have no existing music now?

Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (1)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367583)

>So you have no existing music now?

I have a piano. Most of my peers spend more time making their own music than they do listening to music recorded by others.

Re:Stop consuming RIAA product! (2, Informative)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367466)

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:Stop consuming RIAA product! (1)

ShibaInu (694434) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367509)

Yes, I should have made it more clear that I meant RIAA associated music. Boycott any and all RIAA stuff and we will make them irrelevant.

Re:Indeed (1)

symbolic (11752) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367491)


This is the only solution that I believe will put an end to an era of abuse by an entrenched industry. If you don't buy what they produce, you're cutting the blood supply, so to speak. If you don't copy, you're completely severing their gonads, because they have absolutely NO GROUNDS on which to place culpability on anyone but themselves. Sometimes, the image in the mirror is rather repugnant.

Let the come back, but with offers instead of threats.

Toss-up for best story of the year (1)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367311)

It's really hard to decide if this, or Sony's RootKit DRM fiasco, is the best So take that story of the year -- but both are certainly at the top of my list.

This sounds like a job for.... (4, Insightful)

glomph (2644) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367321)

RICO [wikipedia.org]

Re:This sounds like a job for.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367423)

What can Napolean Dynamite's Uncle Rico do? Besides, I think he went back to 1982

Re:This sounds like a job for.... (0, Offtopic)

punkin (461807) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367592)

... Suave!

Isn't this behaviour approved by the ABA? (1, Insightful)

ishmalius (153450) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367332)

I thought that this type of experience was required to pass the Bar exam.

15 year old witness? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367336)

The fact that RIAA is willing to bring a 15 year old witness into the case at all shows how low they are going. What was she expected to tell the jury?

The difference between a lawyer and a sperm cell? (4, Funny)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367357)

The sperm cell has a one in ten-million chance of eventually becoming a human being!

Re:The difference between a lawyer and a sperm cel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367502)

Not on slashdot.

Here it's one in 100 billion....

The difference between a lawyer and a catfish? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#14367518)

One's a scum sucking bottom dweller, and the other is a fish.

You may be interested into.. (5, Informative)

elpapacito (119485) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367378)

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

In soviet russia.. (0, Offtopic)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367392)

The witnesses bully you into perjury!

So where's the problem? (3, Interesting)

cdrudge (68377) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367419)

<Lawyer hat on>
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? (4, Insightful)

taustin (171655) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367458)

Except the 15 year old made it quite clear that the lawyer solicited testimony he knew to be untrue. That's suborning perjury, generally a felony and always, always grounds for disbarrment.

Hey, I'm curious . . . (3, Insightful)

mmell (832646) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367428)

whaddya suppose all those sub-$100 machines that Mr. Negroponte wants to distribute in the third world will do to this? I mean, these people are absolutely suit proof (referring to their utter lack of things to take by due process). I can't believe it'll take 'em long to figure out how to use their new-found technologies (machines and a pipe to connect 'em) to do something else than visit the 4-H's website.

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 . . . (2, Informative)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367561)

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.

RIAA's problem is not file-sharing (5, Insightful)

Theatetus (521747) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367443)

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 (5, Insightful)

pUr3d0xYk (936029) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367565)

You have a right to try, but not to sue people for getting in your way. To quote a wise old fool:

"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*

Hardly surprising... (5, Insightful)

wouterke (653865) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367444)

This is hardly surprising, is it?

We all knew the RIAA uses mob tactics to get what they want. This is just another proof...

I'm actually surprised nobody's tried to sue them under the RICO act yet. I wouldn't be surprised if they'd win.

not suprising (1)

PacketScan (797299) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367447)

This doesn't suprise me at all.. The music industry is a Filthy business.

I am spying on Americans. Suck it. (-1, Flamebait)

gelfling (6534) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367486)

I mean telling everyone you're breaking the law, will continue to break the law and everyone can get in line to suck your dick worked for President George Bush, didn't it? The RIAA is just trying the same kind of legal tactics as the leader of the motherfucking free world, bitches. You watch, the RIAA will have people killed and will admit to it in court soon.

*evil grin* (4, Interesting)

torstenvl (769732) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367493)

I think it would be nice to slip in state legislation in as many states as possible that does a little death-by-a-thousand-cuts on corporations who do this kind of thing.

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.

RIAA - Get read for that slap on the wrist. n/t (0, Offtopic)

danielk1982 (868580) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367510)

no text.

This is a surprise? (1, Flamebait)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 8 years ago | (#14367564)

Well, this is isn't that much worse than some of the things they've done before. This isn't about winning cases, it's about intimidating people. RIAA has in the past employed people to pretend to be police officers to "raid" flea market booths. Suing grandparents and single moms is all in a day's work. So you're *shocked* they would coach and intimidate a 15 year old? Get real. They'll do worse than that and they'll keep it up until the FBI raids their offices and hauls away the top execs. But since most of the top people at RIAA are Republican, you can forget about that happening, just like you can forget about that criminal Bush being impeached.

Our history is littered with over-reaching corporations. This is just an over-reaching corporate organization designed to shield their member companies from liability. So if RIAA ever does go too far Sony-BMG can put on their best corporate innocent look and say they never authorized THAT.

But as long as Republicans run our government, this is going to be how you're going to be treated by corporate Amerika. While both parties may be corrupt to a greater or lesser degree, Republicans have taken a giant step towards fascism. Governmeny by big business, for big business. Anyone care to argue that's not the defacto situation we have now?

Republicans are corrupt to the core and no one who calls themselves a Christian can continue to support them with a clean conscience. Not that they didn't have to kid themselves before, but now they do it knowingly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>