Can’t wait to see what they choose.

Only the items in their favor or what can be twisted to read in their favor, being disseminated to the media. Many of the early cases in my line of thought were tried in the media way earlier than the actual court case. I seem to recall one victim learning of the intention to sue through the newspaper rather than from due process. To me, this poisons any potential jury or any potential judge by placing a bias in their minds long before the case is presented within the courts jurisdiction.

Often items come to light later, such as the case where the RIAA has dropped pursuing litigation because one of the sitting judges has informed the RIAA in a previous case that there would be no more attempts at grouped victims, ie. John Does 1-22. That each would have to be gone after in a separate case. It is only through those that go back into court records, lawyers whom these cases in particular interest, or those with an intense laymans curiosity that ever know of them. Without those individuals spreading the word around the net, the rest of the public with a potential interest would not know.

This seems to be the preferred method the RIAA likes and wishes dearly to keep. The education campaign seems on par with the other statement that they represent the artists rights. Sounds really good to hear the sound bites but when push comes to shove, any moves that would support them with free services to support their professed interests suddenly become undesired interference. To me actions have always spoken louder than words. Once again I hear an unvoiced scream in the dark saying it ain’t so.

Then again…what’s new in this attempt to prevent the word from getting out?