Blodrast
01-06-2008, 13:41
(oops, is the MPAA gonna sue me now for using that without the content owner's approval ?)
Cary Sherman, the president of the RIAA, says that SONY BMG's in-house lawyer Jennifer Pariser "Misspoke" when testifying during Capitol v. Thomas trial.
Read it and disbelieve it!
here (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/01/according-to-cary-sherman-of-riaa-sony.html)
Friday, January 04, 2008
According to Cary Sherman of the RIAA, SONY BMG's in-house lawyer Jennifer Pariser "Misspoke" when testifying during Capitol v. Thomas trial
According to Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, speaking in an NPR interview available online, Jennifer Pariser -- the head of litigation for SONY BMG -- "misspoke" when she testified in the jury trial in Capitol v. Thomas, as follows:
"Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'" Wired.com
Link for Interview with Cary Sherman of the RIAA and Marc Fisher of the Washington Post
p2pnet.net quotes the "retraction" of Ms. Pariser's sworn testimony by Mr. Sherman as follows:
"The Sony person who [Marc Fisher of the Washington Post] relies on actually misspoke in that trial. I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."
[Ed. note:Hmmmm.... seems that (a) Ms. Pariser was under oath, and speaking to the jury, when she misspoke, (b) her testimony might have had an impact on the outcome of the trial. Wonder if the RIAA's lawyers have notified the judge.-R.B.]
or here (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaas-cary-sher.html)
RIAA's Sherman Speaks (Un)Believable 'Catch 22' -- Update
By David Kravets EmailJanuary 04, 2008 | 7:50:36 PMCategories: RIAA Litigation
Commiepic
Don't believe Cary Sherman, the president of the Recording Industry Association of America, when he told a National Public Radio audience that Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief had misspoken during her testimony in the copyright infringement trial against Jammie Thomas.
And if Sherman was telling the truth during that NPR interview, Thomas was the victim of a miscarriage of justice -- despite the mountain of evidence against her.
Here's the skinny:
In October, a Minnesota federal jury found Thomas liable for copyright infringement and dinged her $222,000 for unlawfully sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network in what was and still is the nation's first and only RIAA case against an individual to go to trial. Most of the RIAA's 20,000 or more lawsuits have settled out of court.
During Thomas' trial in Duluth, RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel asked Sony's Jennifer Pariser if it was OK for a consumer to make one copy of a track that was legally purchased. No, she replied, saying that's "a nice way of saying, steals just one copy."
On Thursday, while debating a Washington Post reporter, Sherman told an NPR audience that Pariser "actually misspoke in that trial."
"I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs," Sherman said. "That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."
One of the reasons jurors dinged Thomas was because she forked over to RIAA investigators a different hard drive than the one industry snoops detected her using on Kazaa in 2005. On the hard drive she did turn over were thousands of songs Thomas said she ripped from her CDs.
The RIAA's Gabriel suggested to jurors that copying one's purchased music was a violation of the Copyright Act.
Gabriel, for example, asked Thomas whether she had ever burned CDs, either for herself, or to give away to friends.
"Did you get permission from the copyright owners to do that?" Gabriel asked.
"No," Thomas responded.
Gabriel, the RIAA's lead attorney, apparently misspoke too -- prejudicing jurors along the way.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis is weighing a motion from Thomas to lower the award or grant a new trial. She claims the Copyright Act, and the maximum $150,000 fine for each violation, is unconstitutionally excessive. THREAT LEVEL wonders what are the odds the RIAA would file papers with Davis explaining the misstatements?
UPDATE: RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said in an e-mail message that Pariser "was quoted out of context and believed the question referred to downloads, not physical copies." THREAT LEVEL rests its case.
The moral of the story is, of course, that should any of you ever find yourself in a court of law, and testifying under oath, you can answer whatever the hell you want, and then claim that you simply misunderstood the question, and thought that the counsel was asking if you liked crackers with cheese.
Bonus points if you are a lawyer yourself. Extra bonus points if the counsel asking you that is YOUR lawyer, and you claim that you didn't understand his/her question. Even more bonus points if you, as well as the counsel questioning you, are both experts in the topic making the point of the trial - which you somehow managed to "misunderstand".
Does this mean now that we get rid of perjury ?
Cary Sherman, the president of the RIAA, says that SONY BMG's in-house lawyer Jennifer Pariser "Misspoke" when testifying during Capitol v. Thomas trial.
Read it and disbelieve it!
here (http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2008/01/according-to-cary-sherman-of-riaa-sony.html)
Friday, January 04, 2008
According to Cary Sherman of the RIAA, SONY BMG's in-house lawyer Jennifer Pariser "Misspoke" when testifying during Capitol v. Thomas trial
According to Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, speaking in an NPR interview available online, Jennifer Pariser -- the head of litigation for SONY BMG -- "misspoke" when she testified in the jury trial in Capitol v. Thomas, as follows:
"Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'" Wired.com
Link for Interview with Cary Sherman of the RIAA and Marc Fisher of the Washington Post
p2pnet.net quotes the "retraction" of Ms. Pariser's sworn testimony by Mr. Sherman as follows:
"The Sony person who [Marc Fisher of the Washington Post] relies on actually misspoke in that trial. I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."
[Ed. note:Hmmmm.... seems that (a) Ms. Pariser was under oath, and speaking to the jury, when she misspoke, (b) her testimony might have had an impact on the outcome of the trial. Wonder if the RIAA's lawyers have notified the judge.-R.B.]
or here (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/01/riaas-cary-sher.html)
RIAA's Sherman Speaks (Un)Believable 'Catch 22' -- Update
By David Kravets EmailJanuary 04, 2008 | 7:50:36 PMCategories: RIAA Litigation
Commiepic
Don't believe Cary Sherman, the president of the Recording Industry Association of America, when he told a National Public Radio audience that Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief had misspoken during her testimony in the copyright infringement trial against Jammie Thomas.
And if Sherman was telling the truth during that NPR interview, Thomas was the victim of a miscarriage of justice -- despite the mountain of evidence against her.
Here's the skinny:
In October, a Minnesota federal jury found Thomas liable for copyright infringement and dinged her $222,000 for unlawfully sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network in what was and still is the nation's first and only RIAA case against an individual to go to trial. Most of the RIAA's 20,000 or more lawsuits have settled out of court.
During Thomas' trial in Duluth, RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel asked Sony's Jennifer Pariser if it was OK for a consumer to make one copy of a track that was legally purchased. No, she replied, saying that's "a nice way of saying, steals just one copy."
On Thursday, while debating a Washington Post reporter, Sherman told an NPR audience that Pariser "actually misspoke in that trial."
"I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs," Sherman said. "That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."
One of the reasons jurors dinged Thomas was because she forked over to RIAA investigators a different hard drive than the one industry snoops detected her using on Kazaa in 2005. On the hard drive she did turn over were thousands of songs Thomas said she ripped from her CDs.
The RIAA's Gabriel suggested to jurors that copying one's purchased music was a violation of the Copyright Act.
Gabriel, for example, asked Thomas whether she had ever burned CDs, either for herself, or to give away to friends.
"Did you get permission from the copyright owners to do that?" Gabriel asked.
"No," Thomas responded.
Gabriel, the RIAA's lead attorney, apparently misspoke too -- prejudicing jurors along the way.
U.S. District Judge Michael Davis is weighing a motion from Thomas to lower the award or grant a new trial. She claims the Copyright Act, and the maximum $150,000 fine for each violation, is unconstitutionally excessive. THREAT LEVEL wonders what are the odds the RIAA would file papers with Davis explaining the misstatements?
UPDATE: RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said in an e-mail message that Pariser "was quoted out of context and believed the question referred to downloads, not physical copies." THREAT LEVEL rests its case.
The moral of the story is, of course, that should any of you ever find yourself in a court of law, and testifying under oath, you can answer whatever the hell you want, and then claim that you simply misunderstood the question, and thought that the counsel was asking if you liked crackers with cheese.
Bonus points if you are a lawyer yourself. Extra bonus points if the counsel asking you that is YOUR lawyer, and you claim that you didn't understand his/her question. Even more bonus points if you, as well as the counsel questioning you, are both experts in the topic making the point of the trial - which you somehow managed to "misunderstand".
Does this mean now that we get rid of perjury ?