Some reading material on the socipathic practices of the RIAA,
which Xedo is trying to emulate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recording_Industry_Association_of_America#Efforts_against_file_sharing
choice quotes:
The RIAA names defendants based on ISP identification of the
subscriber associated with an IP address,[12] and as such do not
know any additional information about a person before they sue.
This has led to them issuing subpoenas to a dead grandmother,[13],
an elderly computer novice,[14] a woman with multiple
sclerosis,[15] and even those without any computer at all.[16]
Sometimes the RIAA continues to sue even in these cases, or seeks
to discontinue without prejudice (and thereby avoid compensating
the defense for legal fees).[17][18][19]
After learning that one alleged copyright infringer has died, the
RIAA offered the deceased man's family a period of sixty days to
grieve the man's death before they began to depose members of his
family for the suit against his estate.[20]
The RIAA also brings lawsuits against children, some as young as
12.[21]
After an Internet subscriber's identity is discovered, but before
an individual lawsuit is filed, the subscriber is typically offered
an opportunity to settle. The standard settlement is a payment of
several thousand dollars to the RIAA, and an agreement not to
engage in file sharing of RIAA music.
Between September 2003 and April 2004, the RIAA, through its Clean
Slate Program, offered amnesty to file sharers not yet being
investigated or sued for copyright infringement. The RIAA promised
not to sue participants in the program, "on the condition that they
refrain from future infringement,"[22]. Critics suggest the offer
was misleading and provided no real assurance against being
sued.[23] A lawsuit brought in California state court, Parke v.
RIAA, alleged the RIAA had committed fraudulent business practices
by offering the program.[24][25] In any event, the program was
discontinued.
In 2005, Patricia Santangelo made the news by challenging the
RIAA's lawsuit against her. While she succeeded in getting the
lawsuit against her dismissed two years later, her children were
then sued. A default judgment entered against her daughter Michelle
for $30,750 for failing to respond to the lawsuit, was subsequently
vacated. [33] Another defendant, Tanya Andersen, a 41 year-old
single mother living in Oregon, filed counterclaims against the
RIAA including a RICO charge. The RIAA requested deposition of her
10 year-old daughter.[34]. Subsequently the RIAA dropped the case,
leaving open only the question of attorneys fees and the RIAA's
liability under Ms. Andersen's counterclaims.[35]. Thereafter, Ms.
Andersen sued the RIAA, the record company plaintiffs, Safenet
(MediaSentry), and Settlement Support Center LLC, for malicious
prosecution. [36].
