RIAA's New Litigation Boss Is Former Exec Caught 'Misstating Facts' In Court
from the ethics-anyone? dept
The RIAA has announced that Jennifer Pariser is its new Senior VP of Litigation -- which is at first interesting given that the RIAA claimed it was giving up on litigation. Of course, the truth is that the RIAA is not actually giving up on litigation, it just is cutting back because (a) the lawsuits have been woefully ineffective and (b) they're not even an effective means of bringing in revenue anymore. So, the RIAA decided that it would cut back, and in doing so turn it into a media frenzy by falsely claiming it was stopping the lawsuits.But, for some of you, Pariser's name may be familiar. That's because when she was at her last job, as an executive at Sony BMG, she testified in the infamous Jammie Thomas trial -- where she was caught outright lying on the stand, which the RIAA later admitted (well, it claimed she "misspoke"). While the Thomas trial was eventually declared a mistrial due to a mistake made by the judge, I've never understood why Thomas's team didn't respond to the fact that the RIAA has admitted that its own "expert" witness lied on the stand in claiming that making a single copy of a song from a CD for personal use is "stealing." And, now, the RIAA rewards her by putting her in charge of its litigation strategy?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jennifer pariser
Companies: riaa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Im not surprised, Both companies are in my boycott list so no matter! FUCK THEM!
Not 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Im not surprised, Both companies are in my boycott list so no matter! FUCK THEM!
Not 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Death to the RIAA & SONY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
they'll die slowly and painfully on their own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You cant do a thing to the RIAA, you aren't their customer.
Music consumers are not the RIAA's customers. There is flat out NOTHING we can do directly to them that will have any effect on their "business practices".
What we can and should do is stop letting the OBVIOUS misdirection work and hold the record companies BEHIND the RIAA totally responsible for the RIAA's actions, BECAUSE THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEM.
As I have said (and am begenning to see repeated in some forums), It's NOT "Fuck the RIAA" it's "Fuck EMI, Fuck Sony Music Entertainment, Fuck Universal Music Group and Fuck Warner Music Group"
I know it's not nearly as catchy and much longer to type but I swear, if every time the RIAA sued someone the record companies got letters telling them that we wouldn't be buying any more of their music in ANY form till the prosecutions stopped the RIAA would change it's "business practices" pretty damn quick.
Why? because THEIR CUSTOMERS would tell them to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
no reward
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: no reward
thus, I hope that all these major music companies go out of business outright. the time to phase them out into obsolescence has come like 25 years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Probably because she bribed the DA.
She makes a great candiate for a senior executive position - fully willing and able to lie on the stand under oath. Do you really expect anyone from the RIAA to be honest on the stand, even under oath? HA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
MLS, I'm curious as to what "anti-copyright rhetoric" was used in this post? Can you point me to something that was factually incorrect, or are you simply trolling again? For a supposedly respectable IP lawyer, it reflects poorly on you to make blind accusations without adding a single fact to back yourself up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish Jammie had a "team"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Senior Vice President of Litigation? This shouldn't surprise me in the least, but I hadn't considered this before: they have an entire department dedicated to litigation?
And the "powers that be" don't see a problem with this? It's one thing to hire a lawyer when someone trespasses on your rights, but having a permanent litigation department to harass people at a whim...?
I really shouldn't be surprised... (it is the American way, after all, yes?)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Especially considering that she seems to have some kind of special immunity that exempts her from perjury charges. That's bound to be valuable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because her lawyer is incompetent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sony
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]