RIAA boss admits witness ‘misspoke’
p2pnet news | RIAA News:- Speaking of getting stories wrong, “An executive with the music industry’s lobbying group engaged in a verbal sparring match on Thursday with the Washington Post columnist who alleges that the organization is trying to outlaw the practice of copying CDs to a computer,” says CNET News‘ Greg Sandoval, going on:
“National Public Radio hosted in on-air debate between Marc Fisher, the Post columnist, and Cary Sherman, president of the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA). The way I saw it, Fisher was ill advised to debate. What was exposed was a reporter who doesn’t want to admit to making a mistake and has dug his heels in.”
It’s still very much open to question whether or not Fisher, Ray Beckerman and others are wrong and in the meanwhile, IMHO, the story isn’t the sparring match between Sherman and Fisher.
It’s testimony, under oath, Sony BMG ‘expert witness’ Jennifer Pariser, a Sony BMG lawyer, gave when she stated, “when an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song.”
But, says Sandoval, RIAA president Cary Sherman admitted unequivocally during an NPR debate with Fisher:
The Sony person who (Fisher) 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.
Fisher also has her saying, making “a copy” of a purchased song is just “a nice way of saying ’steals just one copy’.”
I’m no lawyer and as I write this I can’t get hold of one.
But as Ray Beckerman posts on Recording Industry vs The People:
“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 [Jammie Thomas] trial.
“Wonder if the RIAA’s lawyers have notified the judge.”
Definitely stay tuned.
Jon Newton – p2pnet
Use free p2pnet newsfeeds for your site. It’s really easy!
Subscribe
to p2pnet.net | | rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss | | Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.phpNet access blocked by government restrictions? Use Psiphon from the Citizen Lab at the University of Toronto. Go here for details. Download here.
January 4th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hmmm… perhaps grounds for an appeal?
January 4th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
I will say one thing for the RIAA and their ilk. They are being successful at helping folks come to the decision that no one wants their stuff for free much less for paying for it. They are the best bad publicity money can buy for helping the public realize that they no longer need big music nor the hassles that come from dealing with them.
Why buy products that will end you up in this sort of bind?
January 4th, 2008 at 11:53 pm
FEELING THE HEAT RIAA? Good! That statement about ripping legally purchased CD’s to a computer being illegal, was a very STUPID statement and it has angered a lot of people.
I do not think that Cary Sharman was setting the record straight about ripping legally purchased CD’s because he wanted to….I think he HAD to make some kind of statement.The pressure was mounting and contunues to do so.
To say that woman from Sony “mis-spoke”, was an understatement. There is no law against the making of a backup copy of a CD a person legally purchased. It falls under fair use. So they KNEW they were in the wrong on that one!
Now Sony has finally dropped DRM tracks! Seems that the tide is turning in the consumers favor. It’s about time!
January 5th, 2008 at 8:34 am
It appears to me that it wasn’t only Parisers verbal remarks that may have affected the case.
The jurors in Jammie’s case were given 30 pages of instructions.
The jurors were told that it is an act of copyright infringement to reproducea copyrighted work.
I see no mention of Fair Use in the jurors instructions:
From:
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/files/jury_instructions.pdf
“JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 13
Each plaintiff claims in this case that the defendant
violated its exclusive rights to reproduce and distribute
its copyrighted works. One who either reproduces or
distributes a copyrighted work during the term of the
copyright infringes the copyright, unless licensed by the
copyright owner.”
and here is where they tell the jurors if a copyright infringement (as mentioned above) took place, then it’s a guilty verdict:
“JURY INSTRUCTION NO. 16
If you find that plaintiff CAPITOL RECORDS INC. had a
valid copyright and you find that that copyright was
infringed by defendant, then you should find for plaintiff
CAPITOL RECORDS INC. You must then decide on the amount of
damages plaintiff CAPITOL RECORDS INC. is entitled to
recover.
If, however, you find that such plaintiff did not prove
an infringement by defendant, you should find for defendant
and not decide any amount of damages.”