From Ray Beckerman:

According to Cary Sherman of the RIAA, SONY BMG's in-house lawyer Jennifer Pariser "Misspoke" when testifying during Capitol v. Thomas trial

According to Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA, speaking in an NPR interview available online, Jennifer Pariser -- the head of litigation for SONY BMG -- "misspoke" when she testified in the jury trial in Capitol v. Thomas, as follows:

"Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'" Wired.com

Link for Interview with Cary Sherman of the RIAA and Marc Fisher of the Washington Post

p2pnet.net quotes the "retraction" of Ms. Pariser's sworn testimony by Mr. Sherman as follows:

"The Sony person who [Marc Fisher of the Washington Post] relies on actually misspoke in that trial. I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."



[Ed. note:Hmmmm.... seems that (a) Ms. Pariser was under oath, and speaking to the jury, when she misspoke, (b) her testimony might have had an impact on the outcome of the trial. Wonder if the RIAA's lawyers have notified the judge.-R.B.]

This post requires me to read more and think more before spouting off one of my characteristic retorts.

To be continued....
~Code
But, off the cuff, is there some difference between "perjury" and "misspeaking"?

Don't know.

But we can at least quickly enough agree that this example shows the RIAA is and always has been full of BS.

Let's see...mishearing the question...
Joe Blow is on trial for murder....he is asked "Did you murder Sally Jones?"...
He says no. Videotape is presented showing him doing the crime. Can he just plead that he misheard the question?

"It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs. "

She misheard. She misspoke. She misunderstood. She underestimated the importance of paying close attention when testifying under oath. She had her head up her ass.

What the hell is going on? How cocky can these bastids get?

*Devils advocate mode on*

Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'" Wired.com

Let's assume she misuderstood making a copy to a hard drive from a CD for making a copy off of P2P. Is she saying that it is 'stealing' if someone else makes the mp3 but ok if the original owner makes one?

Are we licensing the content or not?
Does it matter what form or from what source the (replacement) content comes from once we have purchased/licensed it?

Sorry but you can't have your cake and eat it too. Even if she did mishear or whatever
it's still a load of crap. Exactly what we have come to expect from Mr. Sherman.

Let's visit the events in time sequence.

1. The following had been removed from the RIAA's website, but the Internet Archive remembers. http://www.archive.org

"If you choose to take your own CDs and make copies for yourself on your computer or portable music player, that's great. It's your music and we want you to enjoy it at home, at work, in the car, and on the jogging trail."


2. Sworn testimony:
Gabriel asked Sony/BMG's in-house attorneyPariser if it was okay for a consumer to make just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'"
http://www.wired.com


3. Furor erupts over the notion that making a back-up copy (of legally purchased music) for one's own use is tantamount to stealing.
[various websites and media reports]


4. Days later, Cary Sue claims Pariser misspoke when testifying during the trial.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/talk/2008/01/rip_this_and_sue_that.html


Reasonable conclusion about the facts as we know them:
Resorting to damage control has its origins as a political ploy and is deemed preferable in certain instances. This may very well be one of those instances.
Nonetheless, like CodeWarrior, we can reserve the right to defer final judgement to a later date.
In the meantime, though, I gotta say this whole thing really seems to have an odor to it.

Re: "Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too."

Exactly.

The Emily Litella defence: What is all this fuss I hear about the Supreme Court decision on a "deaf" penalty? It's terrible! Deaf people have enough problems as it is! ...... Oh, the death penalty, you say? Death? Oh, that's very different. NEVER MIND.

LOL.

"She misheard. She misspoke. She misunderstood".

It's not an excuse. You are supposed to represent the four major labels is a professional manor, and if this is who they send to court to do their bidding, then how can any judge know if any of their drones know what they hell they are talking about?

Misunderstood my ass. More like misinformed by those that stroke her checks.

Until a judge grows a set of stones, or stops feeding at the RIAA trough, it looks like the RIAA can say whatever they damn well please, whenever they damn well please.

Even then they can just say, "But that's not what we meant. We didn't think you asked the question that way. We want you to ask questions THIS way, so we can put our spin on it."

All I know is that I'm glad I won't be on their end of payback when it happens.

" Until a judge grows a set of stones, or stops feeding at the RIAA trough, it looks like the RIAA can say whatever they damn well please, whenever they damn well please. "

Somehow they are managing to venue shop quite effectively.
one of their favorites has even decided to 'bend' a few rules himself and claim
all of the RIAA cases for his own ...

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/#1849151481764453956

rather than allow them to be handed out by lot, like their supposed to do.

It doesn't make a dam bit of difference
that people like us smell the stink, as
long as those paid to ignore it are firmly
in control of the " law ".

RIAA's Sherman Speaks (Un)Believable 'Catch 22' -- Update

By David Kravets

Don't believe Cary Sherman, the president of the Recording Industry Association of America, when he told a National Public Radio audience that Sony BMG's anti-piracy chief had misspoken during her testimony in the copyright infringement trial against Jammie Thomas.

And if Sherman was telling the truth during that NPR interview, Thomas was the victim of a miscarriage of justice -- despite the mountain of evidence against her.

Here's the skinny:

In October, a Minnesota federal jury found Thomas liable for copyright infringement and dinged her $222,000 for unlawfully sharing 24 songs on the Kazaa file-sharing network in what was and still is the nation's first and only RIAA case against an individual to go to trial. Most of the RIAA's 20,000 or more lawsuits have settled out of court.

During Thomas' trial in Duluth, RIAA attorney Richard Gabriel asked Sony's Jennifer Pariser if it was OK for a consumer to make one copy of a track that was legally purchased. No, she replied, saying that's "a nice way of saying, steals just one copy."

On Thursday, while debating a Washington Post reporter, Sherman told an NPR audience that Pariser "actually misspoke in that trial."

"I know because I asked her after stories started appearing. It turns out that she had misheard the question. She thought that this was a question about illegal downloading when it was actually a question about ripping CDs," Sherman said. "That is not the position of Sony BMG. That is not the position of that spokesperson. That is not the position of the industry."

One of the reasons jurors dinged Thomas was because she forked over to RIAA investigators a different hard drive than the one industry snoops detected her using on Kazaa in 2005. On the hard drive she did turn over were thousands of songs Thomas said she ripped from her CDs.

The RIAA's Gabriel suggested to jurors that copying one's purchased music was a violation of the Copyright Act.

Gabriel, for example, asked Thomas whether she had ever burned CDs, either for herself, or to give away to friends.

"Did you get permission from the copyright owners to do that?" Gabriel asked.

"No," Thomas responded.

Gabriel, the RIAA's lead attorney, apparently misspoke too -- prejudicing jurors along the way.

U.S. District Judge Michael Davis is weighing a motion from Thomas to lower the award or grant a new trial. She claims the Copyright Act, and the maximum $150,000 fine for each violation, is unconstitutionally excessive. THREAT LEVEL wonders what are the odds the RIAA would file papers with Davis explaining the misstatements?

UPDATE: RIAA spokeswoman Cara Duckworth said in an e-mail message that Pariser "was quoted out of context and believed the question referred to downloads, not physical copies." THREAT LEVEL rests its case.

"But, off the cuff, is there some difference between "perjury" and "misspeaking"?"

Yes there is - perjury would require an intentional misrepresentation.

"Can he just plead that he misheard the question?"

Yes he can. But the judge or jury has the right to determine the veracity of his claim.

"Yes he can. But the judge or jury has the right to determine the veracity of his claim."

As we also have the same right to determine the veracity of Sherman's claim that Pariser "misspoke". And we call BS on that one.

The whole thing's a farce. Wonder where Pariser's hiding? She doesn't seem to be able to speak for herself. I'd like to read THAT interview. It won't happen. The mainstream media is too busy licking RIAA's hindquarters.

It doesn't matter who misspoke about what . . . Cary Sherman's a fag and he sucks the bag!!

Devils Advocate #2

Gabriel asked Pariser if it was okay if a consumer makes just one copy of a track they've legally purchased. She said no -- that's "a nice way of saying, 'steals just one copy.'"

If she believes this to be the truth, it is not perjury. In fact, this may be the opinion of each and every RIAA attorney and the board of directors. It may even be a factual statement.

I wish I had a link, but I don't at this moment, however, the Senate report which accompanied the AHRA specifically points out that it does not make a determination whether making personal copies is or is not a copyright infringement. It just says that no action may be taken.

It might be infringement but it doesn't matter because they can't do anything about it.