RIAA's New Litigation Boss Is Former Exec Caught 'Misstating Facts' In Court

from the ethics-anyone? dept

Tue, Feb 3rd 2009 6:30am — Mike Masnick

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

25 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 6:45am

RIAA - Sony BMG

Im not surprised, Both companies are in my boycott list so no matter! FUCK THEM!

Not 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 6:46am

RIAA - Sony BMG

Im not surprised, Both companies are in my boycott list so no matter! FUCK THEM!

Not 1 cent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 6:52am

Time to drop the boycott threat and flat out declare WAR on the labels!

Death to the RIAA & SONY!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris (profile), 3 Feb 2009 @ 7:40am
  
  Re:
  waging war against the RIAA would be a waste of ammunition.
  
  they'll die slowly and painfully on their own.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PhillD, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:17am
  
  You cant do a thing to the RIAA, you aren't their customer.
  Seriously,
  
  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 ]
Joel Coehoorn, 3 Feb 2009 @ 7:06am

no reward
I'm not sure putting someone in charge of a division that you're phasing out is exactly a "reward".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matt, 3 Feb 2009 @ 7:25am
  
  Re: no reward
  considering that they aren't phasing it out, I would indeed consider that a promotion/reward. They have spent millions on litigation and I'll bet every penny in my name that it won't stop until they go out of business.
  
  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 ]
TDR, 3 Feb 2009 @ 7:17am

So why wasn't she charged with perjury and prosecuted?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Frosty840, 3 Feb 2009 @ 7:24am
  
  Re:
  Seconded
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- thomas, 3 Feb 2009 @ 7:35am
  
  Re:
  "so why wasn't she charged with perjury and prosecuted?"
  
  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 ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 11:29am
  
  Re:
  So why wasn't she charged with perjury and prosecuted? Because the legal system is corrupt. Any more questions?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 7:25am

She has proven herself willing to perjure herself in court for the "cause" so why wouldn't she be rewarded? It is funny to see people like this take risks with their life/health/reputation/freedom/etc for corporations when those same corporations would hang you out to dry in a heart beat. Heck, they will have you replaced before a week goes by if needed. I for one will not take a bullet for my company and can't understand why others will???
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 7:56am

It seems that Techdirt will miss no opportunity to fan the flames with its overstated anti-copyright rhetoric.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:03am
  
  Re:
  I've been waiting for someone to temper the discussion with a reasonable view from the other side, but this is the best we ever get. You all complain about how one-sided TechDirt is, but you never offer us anything more. There's no dissenting opinion here, just complaints. Please set the record straight by showing where techDirt's over-stated, because I don't have the data on my own.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:45am
  
  Re:
  better to bring a flamethrower, start with you since you support the enemy
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike (profile), 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:18am
  
  Re:
  It seems that Techdirt will miss no opportunity to fan the flames with its overstated anti-copyright rhetoric.
  
  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 ]
Eddie Pasternak, 3 Feb 2009 @ 8:18am

wtf
First day with a keyboard?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You never know, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:40am

Boycotts won’t work because we all know people will not go with out their music, It's like an addiction. However the court system is getting tired of their endless crap. As it was stated, it is not a profitable exploit and the general public is getting wise to their drivel. Given time it will go away. The shame of it all. The people who have been duped into surrendering money will never have a change to recoup.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ray Beckerman (profile), 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:36am

I wish Jammie had a "team"
but the reality is, she just has one lawyer who isn't getting paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Xiera, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:46am

Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

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 ]
Jesse, 3 Feb 2009 @ 10:58am

Of course they would. "Hey! Maybe she can do some of that 'misspeaking' for us!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 4 Feb 2009 @ 11:09am
  
  Re:
  Of course they would. "Hey! Maybe she can do some of that 'misspeaking' for us!"
  
  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 ]
Rekrul, 3 Feb 2009 @ 9:27pm

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."

Because her lawyer is incompetent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
bob, 6 Feb 2009 @ 11:35am

Sony
If it has Sony on it I don't buy it, and haven't since the root kit fuck up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law Executive, 11 Feb 2009 @ 4:59pm

law
The problem is that IP is already inconsistent with property rights. People can enforce their own property right, at the most basic level, with their fists. You cannot do the same with ideas, since these quickly spawn in people's minds by distribution. The only way IP can be "enforced" is by trampling on other people's rights to how they use their OWN property. See my example above of the cavemen and the limestone wheels.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]