Why do you think this about violence?

I think the RIAA needs to feel what it is like to be intimidated. They committ violence against their victims and ruin lives with their extortion tactics. The only difference is the weapon they use (money). I don’t like bullies, whether they are school yard bullies, public officials, or some mealy mouthed attorney. If one cannot afford the cash to fight it out in court, then I don’t see where it is wrong to pick another battle field where the chances of winning or breaking even are much better. People should look up “Marvin Heemeyer” or killdozier. Now I would not feel a bit badly if someone built something like this and demolished the extortion center. In fact, I think it would be justice served.

Why do you think this is about violence?

Why do you think this about violence?

With all the previous declarations they made before the RIAA should be totally screwed!

Before they were lying up. Now they are lying down since they are trying to limit the damage for the comming class action law suits.

This is what our internal intelligence is telling us. (needless to say that we are not going to diclose our sources at this point)

These are the real numbers:

They tried to intimidate about 35,000 up to now not 18000 as they are claiming now and not 50000 as they were claiming before.

About 7000 only settled and not “most of them” (sic) as they were claiming before and not 4000 as they are claiming now.

(All those people: please come forward for the class action law suits as you may be able to get your money back with interest.)

The remainers told them to fuck themselves or simply ignored them with no consequence.

Among those who told them to fuck themsleves and adopted a tuff posture not one where bothered further!

Not surprinsing since like any bullies these parasites are just a bunch of coward.

Moreover someone perforned some retaliatory operations who were not advertised nor prosecuted since the perpetrators remain unknow and in order to prevent a copy cat effect.

So you know what to do if they still bother you!

Cheer!

Just let that one go Robert.
There is a regular here that always hints at committing violent acts against the RIAA
folks. I think he is either a little off in the head, or deliberately trying to get the site shut
down for advocating violence ( P2Pnet has NEVER advocated violence of any kind ).

I don’t put anything past the RIAA

How would you propose we do that? Other than try to supply counterintelligence against the “intelligence” brought forth by **AA groups, how do we show they are messing with the wrong crowd?

Now it is up to us to demonstrate to these music parasites what can hapen if they bother the wrong guy.

Not the RIAA, but same principle;

My friend’s neighbor had never used BitTorrent. His son showed him how to download torrents from The Pirate Bay. He downloaded one movie, Slumdog Millionare and ended up getting a copyright infringement notice from his ISP. It scared him enough that he called the contact number, apologized profusely, practically begged not to be sued, promised he’d never do it again and then deleted both the BT client and the movie. He said he didn’t even watch it. I keep telling him that I can show him how to download safely (Rapidshare & Usenet), but he either never has any free time, or he’s making excuses, probably because he doesn’t believe that they’re actually safe. I’d say that the warning letter put a good scare into him.

—–
Then the is the concept of beneficial owners.

When an artists or songwriters gives up ownership of their work in exchange of royalties they become beneficial owners of the work.
American copyright laws recognizes the right of beneficial owners to sue when their work is infringed.

See section §501. Infringement of copyright:
“The legal or beneficial owner of an exclusive right under a copyright is entitled, subject to the requirements of section 411 [17 USC 411], to institute an action for any infringement of that particular right committed while he or she is the owner of it”.

So, even if an artist or a songwriter gave away the legal ownership, as beneficial owners they may have a right to be compensated by infringes of their work. As such they may have been indispensable parties in the Thomas lawsuit and without them in the lawsuit there can be no damages. The concept protects Thomas from a new lawsuit from the beneficial owners.
—–

Being a beneficial owners anyone who gave up legal ownership of a copyright (of song or recording) in exchange of royalty payments,

the question here are:

a. Were the song beneficial owners represented by RIAA when settlement offers were made to the alleged infringers?
b. Were the people who settled advised that RIAA did not represent the beneficial owners and that because of that the alleged infringers could be sued later on anyway by the songwriters/owners or the beneficial owners?
b. Did RIAA share the settlement payment with the songwriters/owners or the beneficial owners?

If any answer is no, the settlements may constitute fraud or deceit.

This is because of Tanya’s attempt to file a class action suit against the RIAA.

There has to be a certain number of victimized parties in order to become a ‘class’ for a Class Action suit.
RIAA is using it’s usual ‘out of the ass’ math to make sure that there aren’t enough victims to achieve
class action status. Just like with their accounting practices they create whatever number they need,
depending on who they are trying to convince.