The RIAA, Marie Lindor saga
2pnet.net News:- Marie Lindor, the Brooklyn mother and home health aide who admits she doesn’t know one end of a computer from the other, is wondering how the Big Four Organized Music family’s RIAA thinks it can cite as evidence in a court case something it hasn’t actually produced.
The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) is owned and operated by EMI (Britain), Vivendi Universal (France) and Sony BMG (Japan and Germany), with Warner Music as the only US company, and it’s trying to paint a picture of Lindor as a wicked file sharer among the multitudes of Big Four customers who are, claim the gang, “devastating” them and causing all kinds of terrible misfortunes to their empolyees and contracted artists.
That is, of course, arrant nonsense, but it doesn’t stop the mainstream media from parroting it as though it’s hard fact any more than it stops the multi-billion-dollar Big Four from reporting mind-boggling revenues at the same time they’re proclaiming they’re being ruined.
Meanwhile, in what’s rapidly developing into a saga, Lindor lawyer Ty Rogers wants a court to rule the RIAA can’t introduce into the case songs it’s failed to produce.
“Ms. Lindor’s lawyers submitted to the Court the RIAA’s interrogatory responses where the record companies had stated under oath that their case was based upon (a) Media Sentry’s detection of song files being ‘distributed’ and (b) Media Sentry’s allegedly making ‘perfect digital copies’ of those files,” says Ray Beckerman on Recording Industry vs The People, and going on:
“Ms. Lindor’s attorneys argued that the RIAA cannot prove that it made perfect digital copies of the songs if it doesn’t have the song files.”
And when we said it was becoming a saga, we weren’t exaggerating.
There’s a fascinatig dialogue dedicated to the Lindor case.
So stay tuned.
Also See:
home health aide – Marie Lindor vs the RIAA, August 30, 2006
Recording Industry vs The People – Preclusion Motion Filed in UMG v. Lindor, September 22, 2006
p2pnet newsfeeds for your site.
rss feed: http://p2pnet.net/p2p.rss
Mobile – http://p2pnet.net/index-wml.php
September 27th, 2006 at 5:05 am
I once served on an Orange County (i.e. Republican, pro-business, tough-on-crime) trial jury in a shoplifting case.
The prosecution in that case alleged that the act had been committed in an area under camera surveillance, but it was the defense that brought up the issue of the surveillance. Why? Because the tapes were missing! The prosecution was unable to produce the surveillance evidence of the defendant in the act. The tapes had been misplaced, taped over, whatever.
That missing evidence ended up reflecting very poorly on the prosecution’s case: it prompted us to question both the motives of the store representatives (did they really have a stake in this prosecution, or were we dealing with mechanistic corporate rules?), and the reliability of their investigation. We even had a good laugh about how easy it would be for the twelve of us to shoplift and beat the charge, with crummy investigation like that. Counsel for defense should have patted herself on the back for it; it ended up being the strongest part of the defense’s case.