In UMG v. Lindor, RIAA lawyer Richard L. Gabriel, in opposing the motion of Ms. Lindor's son to quash the subpoena of his computer, has admitted that he called the son's employer. See page 2, footnote 1:
November 27, 2006, Letter of Richard L. Gabriel*
* Document published online at Internet Law & Regulation
Commentary & discussion:
Slashdot
digg
p2pnet.net
hexus.lifestyle
Digital Music Weblog
Buzz Screen
Keywords: digital copyright online download upload peer to peer p2p file sharing filesharing music movies indie label freeculture creative commons pop/rock artists riaa independent mp3 cd favorite songs
14 comments:
Dear judge(s) in this case
just 3 words: NEUTRAL forensic Expert!
The RIAA's own expert isn't trustworthy!
See SONY v. Arellanes (Sherman, Texas) how to handle the RIAA request if you don't want to quash the subpoena!
And please note that mp3 players and iPods can not have IPAdresses. So snooping around on them can and will not lead to any evidence against the defendant in this case! The RIAA just wanted to fish for alledged infringers other then the defendant in this case!
RIAA = BASTARDS (in my humble opinion)
~Code
Is there some significance to the RIAA lawyer calling the Son's employer? If there is, I have missed the importance.
John Newlin said..."Is there some significance to the RIAA lawyer calling the Son's employer?"
How would you like it if it happened to you?
oh my good, I never thought I might defend RIAA-Richard one day, but wonders happen!
Ray, I don't see the significance of this call either that it is worth a headline on this blog
Of course if RIAA-Richard would have harrased the employer then it would be worth a headline, but if I understand the footnote correctly did he only called the employer (a legal firm if I understand it all correctly) if this non party in this civil action against Miss Lindor got the subpoena because the RIAA served the papers on one of the other employees in this lawfirm.
Since I'm NOT as bad as the RIAA I give Mr. Gabriel the benefit that I believe that he writes the truth about this call (unless the lawfirmguy he called says that Mr. Gabriel harrassed him preferably with a recording of that call posted on the net)
You for example didn't posted a new headline when RIAA-Richard asked you in his email's if you can accept the Papers for Woddy a few postings ago.
OF course the RIAA tactic here is pure evil. If they think that Woddy and the other Lindor kids are the infringers (see Santangelo case!) they shouldn't be allowed to use these tactics "thru the backdoor" of this civil case against Miss Lindor.
But hey, what are we expecting, they are the evil RIAA!
How would you like it if someone called your employer suggesting they suspected you of music piracy?
I would feel very pissed and then sue this caller for defamatory and libel and slander and all this if the caller has no evidence for his suspicion!
(Now wait, that's why RIAA-Richard wants the mp3 players...Because the RIAA has NO real evidence in the beginning of EVERY case)
But come on Ray, it must have been clear to you from the beginning that the RIAA will go after the Lindor kids if they can't nail the mother. We also see that in the Santangelo case now. (Maybe Krichbaum "talked" to the Santangelo neighbours son!!)
See it from the RIAA's point of view; they truly believe that the Lindors downloaded music. Now as they more or less say that they did not found evidence for that on the HDD (now you know why RIAA-Richard did not came up with the Report!) they want to snoop around to find the music elsewhere!
Its the Job of Mr Altmann to argue why the sons electronic music playing devices are not an issue in the case against Miss Lindor!
rufus said..."I have to agree with Ray on this issue. This is just another dirty tactic by the RIAA lawyers. I believe they were not trying to find out if Ms. Lindor's son got a subpoena, but rather it was a call implying to the employer that,"Hey did you know that your employee may be a thief? He is suspected of stealing music online." It brings up integrity issues at work that could affect how he is treated by his boss. We all know that just being accused of something bad, even if we are truly innocent, can be troublesome. It is just another pressure point to push the accused to settle. Shame on you "fritz" for being a sucker to this ploy. "
I am in agreement with rufus on this. Woody Raymond wasn't hiding from anybody or anything. It was just a ploy to pile on more 'terror'.
I'm surprised alter_fritz, who coined the term "RIAA Richard", would take "RIAA Richard" at his word.
Ray, I never give up hope about the honesty in other humans
(and maybe I tent to believe him because I am under the impression that judges would punish lawyers that willfully lie to them. In all the other instances where Mr. Gabriels words were "strange and not simply representations of objective facts" the judges could excuse him by assuming that he is just a bit stupid and has problems to see things as they objectively are. If it turns out in THIS event that what he writes is not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then the judge(s) MUST punish him in my opinion! That's why I think he tells the truth this time.)
It's not the truth, alter_fritz. What he said is bunk.
Alter_Fritz, the significance is very simple. The employer, a law firm, now must worry if the actions of their paralegal are going to result having one or more of their hard drives, complete with confidential client data, ordered in for forensic inspection. Even if no overt threat to subpoena his work computer was made, unless his employers have been under a rock, they have to know that's a basic part of the RIAA's play book.
Talk about placing the paralegal employee in a difficult position with his employers. Imagine having to disclose to clients that their files are going to be examined by a third party they don't know. But worry not, that third party is under a court ordered gag. If I were the client, I would be angry beyond words.
In my very lay opinion, it's nothing more then harassment. Anyone want to bet whether or not Mr. Raymond has been on the carpet discussing this matter with a few of the more senior management of that law firm?
Being a lay person I don't know what kind of storm the RIAA can raise with Raymond's employer. But with Raymond being their IT guy with access to everything on the network, I think a case could be made to examine all the storage in the building Raymond had access to.
Of course with the RIAA behaving like a well mannered protection racket, I could see them making a back channel offer to the law firm about forgetting the whole discovery thing if Raymond does not work there anymore.
uplinktruck has a good understanding of how horrible it is what RIAA Richard did.
As I understand it, what uplinktruck is describing here very well is about the possible outcome of the former post
http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/11/riaa-subpoenas-ms-lindors-sons.html
The negative effects, the "harrasment-factor" and how evil RIAA is in doing that kind of things with non-parties like Woody in this civil action against Miss Lindor the officially accused person that is sued for alledged copyrightinfringement, I think are clear.
My significance question was only with regards to this "one lawyer calls another lawyer"-posting here.
"[RIAA Richard] Admits He Called Ms. Lindor's Son's Employer"... to ask if the subpoena was succesfully served.
(That's what he is writing to the judge, Ray in contrast says RIAA-Richard's story of the happenings are bunk.)
Now if we request for us that we are human and not like the evil RIAA we should remember this latin "in dubio pro" thingy.
So as long as neither Mr. Raymonds employer is coming forward and saying that RIAA-Richard has harrased or threatened him on the phone nor the judge is ruling that RIAA-Richard lied about the nature of the call in his letter to him then we should judge in favour of RIAA-Richard that this call was infact only about "Did the papers reach him yet?"
Don't get me wrong "uplinktruck", Ray and the other readers, I think uplinktruck's posting is IMHO good to explain the possible consequences of the subpoena and should therefore be posted in the other blogentry.
But the consequences of the papers -you are describing here in a good laymanspeakversion- have no significance with regards to this blogentry "RIAA-Lawyer phones non-RIAA lawyer" because Mr. Raymonds employer was aware of it because the papers were handed to another employee of him.
(That's how I understand the happenings with the knowledge I have from the filed papers. So my POV that I don't see the significance of THIS single blogposting might be because I don't have all the facts.)
Post a Comment