Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Calls Settlements Proof that Education is Working
MattW writes "AP reports that the RIAA has filed the next 80 lawsuits. The article contains a dumbfounding quote from Cary Sherman, President of the RIAA: 'The fact that the overwhelming majority of those who received the notification letter contacted us and were eager to resolve the claims is another clear signal that the music community's education and enforcement campaign is getting the message out.' Just for clarification, Cary, all it proves is that monopolistic giants can, in fact, afford to pay lawyers more than average people, and so said people are easily bullied. But nice try." It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve.
Since these lawsuits being filed are obviously the huge monopolistic giant against the little guy, and the little guy obviously can't AFFORD to defend himself, doesn't that mean something is fundamentally broken here?
Isn't it just as obvious that 20 corporate lawyers against a single public defender simply ISN'T fair?
Hello? President Bush? Senate? Congress? Can you hear us?
If you haven't seen this week's new episode of South Park, you might want to catch it on Comedy Central. Basicaly, there is a stab at the music industry in general. Cartman starts a Christian rock band just to exploit it for the money (calling the music simple and bad), and a "ghost of Christmas present" of sorts shows the kids that because they downloaded a song, certain musicians won't be buying their 3rd gold plated Rolls Royce. Or something to that effect.
Not the best episode they've done, but certainly an open statement to the RIAA.
Never hit your grandmother with a shovel, for it leaves a bad impression on her mind...
Compared to the average person, corporations have effectively infinite resources, so of course people aren't defending themselves.
All the same, I wish someone would fight the charge based on the lack of hard evidence. I'm referring to the easily spoofable search results that the RIAA is using as "proof" for its case. All we would need is one positive result and this lawsuit war would be over.
"Musicians look so poor when I see them on television"
As an amateur musician I'm sad to read that. Actually most musicians have a hard time getting the ends together. Unfortunately, the 'selection' process of the record companies doesn't really help that problem, since they select more on sex appeal and neutralness than on musical abilities or originality.
For those musicians who are original and are making what I like to call "real music", it would be nice to have a little extra money to get their music out to the public.
This is a replacement signature.
Isn't it just as obvious that 20 corporate lawyers against a single public defender simply ISN'T fair?
Public Defender?
I believe these are civil cases, not criminal, so I'm not certain that public defenders are even provided. If you don't have the money for a lawyer, good luck.
That's why some people refer to the US "Legal system" instead of "Justice System".
I'm not claiming that you have the right to make copies of things you buy, or listen to your music where you want, or go to the toilet during commercials ... Uhh, wait a minute, there is something clearly wrong here ..
echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
that on the RIAA website the WHOLE of the front page (latest news) is covered with information about the court cases etc, they even have a complete Piracy Section, it makes me wonder how they're helping artists when all they're doing is sueing the people who (might) buy their albums. Surely they shouldn't be doing stuff like helping young artists find work?
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
CowboyNeal wrote "It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve."
I would have a lot less problem paying for music and even paying in these settlements, but you know damn well that the artists aren't even going to see 1 cent on the dollar... This is just going to pay record companies.
More likely right into Cary Sherman's pocket...
DJMD - The fourth man - Planetary
Is bullshit. Digital media have cut the legs away from traditional music distribution, and the RIAA are just trying to stop the sea from rising. They could sue the entire populace, it will change nothing.
Music - like technology, writing, science - represents human heritage and human culture and the era where small groups control access to this for commercial gain is over, finished, and now it's just time to bury the stinking corpse and go for a real party.
There are so many good ways of rewarding creative effort, it's a pollution of the concept of "art" to pretend that money is all that matters. Luckily, almost no-one is fooled.
Ceci n'est pas une signature
Congratulations, you've finally woken up to the reality of te broken existance that has been in place in this country for the 22yrs I've been around and continues growing worse.
Don't cry to the polititions, they are mere puppets for the corporations.
I still say that I won't buy any more music until I can DL it directly from a musician's site and know that they are collecting the money, not thier pimp. I have no problem paying for talent, but I do have a problem paying a promoter. Why don't more artists try to distribute music this way? Until that day comes I will just dust off the tape recorder and rip from the radio, old school. XM + Recorder = Mad beats.
Do you think being represented by an organization that puts millions into suing your customers on your behalf is going to help you get rich? Most struggling musicians I know embrace file trading as a way to get their music out there. If the RIAA succeeded in shutting down open p2p programs and scaring people away from downloading free music, the smaller musicians without big label backing would have a harder time getting the music out, just like they have a harder time getting it out on Internet and commercial radio stations since we've legislated our way out of choice and diversity. There's hardly any small stations online or on the air that you can actually go knock on a door and talk to someone about playing your music. It's not about all musicians being rich- it's about the RIAA only representing the outdated distribution channel, which only benefits the richest artists, if any. Even the "rich" ones aren't always rich - ever wonder how many of those Hummers, Jets and Mansions are either owned by the record label or a bank? By the time the artist has the promotional and production costs taken out of their royalties, there often isn't anything left. The big labels own their asses. I don't think his comment was meant to imply that all musicians are rich - I think it more likely that he was making the point that the majority of artists that are backing the RIAA and anti-customer actions are filthy, stinking rotten rich, or at least so they think.
666-607: 6th floor apartment of the beast
With the basis of the lawsuits when even the musicians are blasting the lawsuits as wrong.
" It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve."
Just because the RIAA are using shitty tactics, dosen't mean you should be allowed to infringe copyright. It's currently illegal and if Musicians *are* getting a raw deal, then they should get the money that is owed to them.
Also remember that all the props you see on MTV are funded by the record company. Why do you think rappers need to start their own clothing company?
Musicians that you get to see on TV that is.
Many musicians struggle on in obscurity, the cost of equipment and getting publicity taking everything they make out of music. Others, like myself just walk away from it all and get an office job.
Even those that you see on TV aren't really benefitting, with the exception of the few real superstars (Eminem, Madonna etc). The record companies like their charted artists to look rich, so they dress them up in expensive clothes and send them to flashy parties in fancy cars -- then send them the bill for it.
The average artist incurs more costs over the term of his contract than his earnings. As a result of "being in debt" to his record company, the company can then demand that the artist does not record for anyone else, even though they don't want to record him themselves. The artist then cannot record and loses his chosen way of earning a living.
Don't blame the artists for the work of the RIAA: we're as much victims of the music industry cartels as the consumer.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
So... if you received such a letter you'd fight them to the bitter end? Tell us... how on earth would you pay for legal representation? Or would you attempt to defend yourself? In either case, I'm sad to say, you would loose, because you do not have the resources to fight.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Be beligerent...
Send them a doodle of an octopus giving them the finger 8 times.
I'd suggest that we all break into record stores and destroy the CDs, but insurance would cover it and we gain nothing.
No, it's easier to settle than to fight. If I got the letter, the one condition of my settlement would be that I get an invoice of who gets what ammount of the payment. Then I'd call up all the artists on the list and let them know that I'm glad my 35 cents contributed to their new Ferarri.
Maybe it's time to start selling a dead-man switch for our PCs. Just use an open WAP as your switch and you will be covered. When they sue you, thermite your hard-drives and then claim that someone else used your WAP to download that stuff...
I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve.
First, musicians won't get the money they deserve. The minions and scumbags around them will get the lions share. Second, do you like music and enjoy listening to recordings? If so you should pay for that convenience. Artists SHOULD get paid commensurate with the amount of people they make happy. Top 40 stars are listened to by millions of people and thus should make millions of dollars. Alternative underground bands may have 100s or 1000s of followers and should make money that supports that level. Just because Cowboy Neal does not believe that creating something that will make 1000s of people sit and relax and listen for a couple of minutes is a worthwhile endeavour doesn't mean that it isn't. I consider slashdot to be my source of "press" on these issues, it would be nice to see it treated as such. Artists deserve their licensing to be respected just like programmers do wether you agree with the license model or not.
Nice server you've got here, shame if anything happened to it...
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
That's not what this is about. It's not about the musicians at all you dim wit. It about the corporations that are hiding behind the musicians and art in general with regard to this issues. Get educated before making comments like this because you are not helping if you are as ignorant as the RIAA.
Not entirely flamebait, please finish before modding down...
Mainstream music sucks anyway. Get over it and stop downloading it for the simple fact that it sucks.
That said, if you actually want to support an artist, don't ever buy their albums. Instead, go to their shows and buy their merchandise. Most of the time, this money goes directly to them. This is almost always true for small bands on small labels. I haven't bought a record in 6 years because I know not a single cent is going to the artist unless I buy that album straight from them or it was DIY released. Instead, all the money I would have spent on records, I use to buy shirts, stickers, posters, pins, and what the hell ever straight from the band when I go to see them.
---------------------------
Sorry to sound harsh, but I prefer to chose on my own _who_ educates me and _on what_. The sentence about "the RIAA educating the music community" just gets on my nerves.
I signed up for the RIAA Do-Not-Call List.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
Don't get me wrong, the RIAA and the MPAA are a bunch of bloated, jack-booted thugs that I would dearly love to see eradicated from the face fo the Earth. However, I just don't understand why the justification/sentiment is still so popular that when stealing music and movies it is somehow in response to the decadence of the RIAA, MPAA, and its "members" of actors and musicians.
Just steal the stuff and be done with it. If you feel the need to justify your actions when there is no real judgement (as in no judgement that matters, like in a court of law) levied against you than clearly you have internal guilt issues and should sit down and think things over. Stop being pathetic losers. Stop trying to justify your choices. Stop confusing entertainment with life and liberty. If you don't like their tactics then don't support them. Refuse to see the Matrix and Return of the King. Refuse to buy the next 1337 music album from "Cool Seattle Rip Off Band #39371." I can't remember the last time I went to a movie or obtained a music CD (bought, had a buddy burn it, etc). Have some balls, and stop being little whining bitches. Do something about the problem, don't make the problem worse. (No, war of attrition is not part of the solution and YES, your dollar is your vote of approval when you give it out)
Stop being whining bitches
Don't they realise that these tactics are about as fruitful as SCO's efforts? I mean a sword has a double edge. History teaches us that the sword will indeed swing the other way and I hope it chops the head off of these several snakes.
No Hydra references allowed, These bastards are indeed a contemporary threat that will suffer the fate of the TWX industry. (They used to be the best in the business)
Anybody remember TWX?
Didn't think so.
Don't cry to the polititions, they are mere puppets for the corporations.
HOLD ON!!! Do you really mean that politicians in the US are not the representatives of the people, elected by the people, to serve the people? OH MY GOD! What an outrageous claim! You unpatriotic scum! Arrest him! He's a terrorist! Quick, before he spreads his disease!
Daniel
Carpe Diem
Back when the Evil Corporate Giants tried to deal with their purported problem by shooting the messenger (Napster, ISPs, the Internet at large), you all said this was wrong and they should go after the real offenders. Now they are doing that and you object? Pah.
The situation is complex and this will work to simplify it. Eventually some of the defendants will choose to go to trial and make the Giants prove their case, which should expose some real data (as opposed to FUD^Wspeculation) about the nature and magnitude of the problem. There will be some chain-reaction suits when consumers stung because they had not bought what they thought they had, turn around and sue third parties for deceiving them and thus exposing them to legal liability. Some genuine thieves will be punished and that should decrease the incidence of such theft somewhat. Then maybe we'll be able to judge just how much of the music industry's current situation is actually due to theft and how much to making products that no longer appeal.
I'd very much like to see some of these cases go to trial. I think we'd learn a lot. But we'd all have to give up some of our prejudices. Wouldn't that be a shame.
Hello, there is a 600 lb gorilla in the room. What is this education crap? The RIAA is not educating us. What they have been trying to do is brainwash us.
"Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)"
Education Ed`u*ca"tion (?; 135), n. L. educatio; cf. F.
'education.
The act or process of educating; the result of educating, as determined by the knowledge skill, or discipline of character, acquired; also, the act or process of training by a prescribed or customary course of study or discipline; as, an education for the bar or the pulpit; he has finished his education.
When the result of your 'education' is a small decrease in the 60 million criminals, you are not educating. What the RIAA is preaching, not teaching, is no longer prescribed or customary.
The RIAA has outlived its usefulness and its arguments are taking on a more and more dangerous tone. They should be working on servers and other electronic music delivery systems.
No, I'm sorry. Congress is too busy passing themselves raises in the face of record unemployment and telling the RIAA to threaten first and then file court papers so they hear less whining from the /. folks who pester them. Oh yeah, scrounging money for a whopping $12,000 to go to the families of each American soldier killed in Iraq. Oh. And I think they matched $100,000 Canadian to help contribute in the moving of a killer whale down from Canadian waters.
/. you either don't vote, or the cost benefit ratio for getting your vote is too low to justify working at it. Am I over-generalizing? Certainly. But politics comes down to numbers and just think how many of your representatives in Washington think the way you do, and also have the guts to turn down money or votes to stand behind their beliefs.
/bitter.
I believe the white house is thinking of new ways to award Haliburton contracts that nobody else happened to bid on because they weren't quite public.
They CAN hear, they just don't WANT to. All they want is is swag and to be re-elected, and quite frankly, if you're on
Give yourself 10 minutes without google and see if you can come up with a list of 20 names.
Oh, yeah, no public defender in civil cases. Basically by the time you step into the courtroom, you've already spent more than you would if you had settled unless you choose to "represent yourself". I somehow doubt pre-paid legal will win your case if they are against lawyers who get paid a lot more.
1q2w3e4r5t6y7u8i9o0pqawsedrftgthyjukilo;p'azsxdcf
Based on the RIAA's arguments for initiating these lawsuits, I would think that the only "proof" that they are working would be an increase in CD sales.
Has that happened yet?
Read any good sonnets lately?
"It warms my heart to know that artists will be getting all the money that's due to them. Musicians always look so poor when I see them on television. Finally, they can afford the lifestyle they deserve."
Um, the artists get nothing, squat, fuck-all from this process. If the point of the RIAA is to protect the copyrights of and benefit the artists they sure have a funny way of seeing that they're compensated properly-if at all. None of the previous settlements (Napster, MP3.com, etc.) have benefitted the artists whatsoever - only some nebulous cooalition of businessmen practicing a racketeering protection scheme with a difficult to prounounce acronym.
"Look, Smithers! I'm Davy Crockett!"
look, i've been in bands for roughly 13 years now. any musician who actually makes the mistake of believing the RIAA is acting in the best interests of anyone other than the music PUBLISHERS is either a) ignorant of the situation or b) ludicrously naive.
now, music PUBLISHERS, in my opinion, are at the heart of this problem. this bullying litigation, these big corporations claiming your brain and your ears are their property. well maybe they don't claim that quite yet. just wait.
intellectual property laws need a major overhaul, especially in the arena of artistic works. as far as i know, there is virtually no difference, legally, between say, a microchip schematic and the song "What Do I Get" by the Buzzcocks. complete "ownership" of both can be bought and sold.
this is where artists get screwed.
since the artists, generally, are private individuals, they don't have the means to reach an audience large enough to make a living from their music. this is where the large multinational corporation steps in. they promise the exposure and distribution needed to move units far beyond the artist's capabilities. all they ask in return, of course, is the sole publishing rights to the music.
at this point the musician is a slave. the artist can't even legally burn his own CD, or send MP3s to friends.
even worse, if the corporation decides that the CD isn't selling well enough, they can decline to print another run of CDs. and of course since they own the publishing rights, it's illegal to make copies of that music through anyone else. i've seen lots of bands who go on tour and can't even sell their own CDs at their shows because their label didn't want to spend the money to print them. I've seen an established band with half a dozen full-length albums out unable to sell a single CD to a sold out audience because of a publishing deal gone bad. i've seen a band sell 40,000 CDs and not see one cent from their label.
the way to solve this problem is simple. intellectual property laws are too strong. first, in the case of artistic works, make it illegal for ownership OR exclusive publishing rights to be transferred away from the creator of the art himself. with one simple stroke, the power with which the music "industry" has imprisioned the musicians would dissolve. there would actually be some power in creating something rather than simply buying the rights to that creation. a musician, unhappy with his current label, would actually have some leverage. moving to a new label wouldn't mean abandoning the rights to all his previous work.
in addition, when an artist dies, the intellectual property rights shoud die with him. none of this nonsense with the estate of pablo picasso sueing websites for posting pictures of Guernica a good 70 years after he painted it. "the estate of pablo picasso" didn't paint the damn thing. it's just a team of lawyers trying to get paid.
even my band's mascot, Feseral Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, a republican, made a speech not long ago stating that intellectual propety laws had become too restrictive. they have crossed the line and become a hindrance rather than a tool for the progress of modern society.
of course, it's a self-perpetuating problem. monetarily, and therefore politically, the publishers outweigh the musicians by a wiiiiiide margin precisely BECAUSE of these unjust intellectual property laws.
i wish i could see a brighter future for musicians, but until then i'll continue to operate outside the boundaries of this music industry.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Same goes for the folks who paid the SCO invoices for Linux
An SCO invoice is _alot_ more affordable than any legal battle, short of perhaps an episode of Judge Judy or something. There's a difference between being sheep and having the economic sense to go with the cheaper/easier solution so you can just get on with your life/business.
The article says some of the settlements were as low as $2500. Again, not terribly expensive when compared to attorney fees (remember, these are civil cases and so the defendant is not entitled to free representation like with criminal cases) coupled with the time and effort (missed work, time away from family, etc.) required to battle the RIAA in court.
You'll notice also, in the article, that the settlements "do not include any admission of wrongdoing." Loosely translated, the court case as a whole basically resulted with, "Ok, you didn't necessarily do anything wrong. but the rich guys think you did and want some money from you. You hereby agree to give them money if for no other reason than to make them leave you alone."
The moral of the story: It's often easier to just pay the extortionist than to have him break your knees.
http://publicvoidlife.blogspot.com
Like many of those on SlashDot, I'm one of those anal people who gets annoyed because calling copyright infringment 'piracy' or 'theft' is factually incorrect. It's obviously not a bunch of people sailing around in three-masted ships yelling, "Arrrgh!"
Likewise, 'theft' is a very specific action by which you deprive the origonal owner of the use an object. If I take your book (or digital camera, or actually break into your house and steal your computer) you can no longer use it. I've taken something specific from you and the only way you can recover the object is to get it back from me.
On the other hand, with copyright infringment, my downloading an MP3 or movie or piece of software does not deprive anyone else of its use. By saying 'theft,' the movie industry, record industry, and software companies are trying to convince you that downloading a piece of software, say Windows XP, that costs $200 at Best Buy is the same as breaking into Microsofts vault and physically stealing $200.
But it's not.
That isn't to say it's not morally wrong. You need to decide that for yourself. And it's undeniably illegal. No one is trying to argue that. (Although you could make an argument that the punishment the RIAA is attempting to extract is grossly out of proportion to the crime. And many people _are_ arguing that.)
But by downloading software or MP3s or movies or whatever, you're not depriving anyone else from the ability to watch that movie, play that song, or use that software. That's why digital information is so complicated. Because you can copy it, with very little difficulty, and without depriving anyone else of its use. By downloading "American Beauty" to my computer, I haven't prevented anyone else from watching it.
And, arguably, I haven't cost the movie industry anything.
See, the argument they ("they" being the movie industry, MPAA, record industry, RIAA, and various software companies like Microsoft) are trying to put forth is that for every piece of software or music or movie downloaded, that's a literal sale that they have lost. But I was never going to buy "American Beauty." If I hadn't been able to download it, I would have just settled for not having it. They've lost exactly no money by me downloading it.
Yes, there are people who WOULD have gone to buy the movie if they had no other option, and would have gone to buy the CD if they had no other option, and are now happily downloading stuff from KaZaA. They constitute the "lost sales" the RIAA keeps whining about.
But maybe the RIAA/MPAA/software company/etc/etc should be doing a little more to keep their customers (better products? lower prices? But that would be UNAMERICAN!!) rather than attempting to sue them into oblivion.
This is my personal justification, and you're welcome to agree with it or not. But the numbers simply don't support what "They" are saying: that "piracy" is costing the RIAA/MPAA/software industry billions of dollars a year.
For example, record sales are down. You can look at the many stats the RIAA releases and see this.
The RIAA would have you beleive it's because of the "horrors of piracy." But might it be because the economy as a whole is doing poorly? So people are less likely to buy entertainment? Or maybe CD prices (on average, as there are some exceptions) went up again? Or maybe it's just because the RIAA keeps putting out crappy music that no one wants to listen to?
No. It's obviously "piracy."
So copyright infringment is still illegal. I've broken the law by downloading "American Beauty." But whether or not it's morally wrong is for the downloader to decide for themself.
Forgive me for ranting, and feel free to post a response in which you disagree. I know I'm taking a radical position here, and one a lot of people in "the real world" (i.e. outside of slashdot) don't agree with. But by calling copyright infrigment 'piracy' or 'theft,' you're buying into the idea that downloading an MP3 is worse than it really is. Th
First, musicians won't get the money they deserve. The minions and scumbags around them will get the lions share.
... well, far, far less, needless to say. Is that fair? Doesn't the guy who puts in overtime painting the sets so they'll be dry for tomorrow's shoot deserve just as much pay as the trained monkey spouting lines (that someone else wrote for him) in front of the camera (which is being run by another low-paid professional)?
This point of view has often bothered me. I don't get it. First of all, it takes dozens, maybe even hundreds of people to produce an album. From the talent scouts, to the lyricists, marketers, sound engineers, cover artists, and everyone in between. If it takes 200 people (counting the actual artist) to produce an album, why should the artist get more than 1/200th of the profits? What makes them so deserving of this huge windfall, leaving the other 199 equally hard-working (and probably better educated and less drug-addicted) staff to fight over the remaining scraps?
Would you prefer the type of arrangement we see in the movie industry? Tom Hanks makes a movie and gets paid $20 million. The other 500 people involved in the movie get
So which situation would you prefer? Relatively equal distribution for all, including the artist (a la music), or grossly disproportionate distribution of the profits (a la movies)?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Give yourself 10 minutes without google and see if you can come up with a list of 20 names.
While I agree with your premise that most people don't know (enough) about their elected representatives, I thought it was also fair to say that not only do a great number of states have less than 20 Congress members total, but any given person only gets to vote for 3 (1 Rep from your district, 2 senators).
I'll see your James Walsh and raise you a Hillary Clinton and a Chuck Schumer, your bet.
Green-voting, republican-registered, socialist-libertarian.
I've bought hundreds. Blanks, that is.
You can still help people that were sued in the last round by making a contribution directly to them using the Peer-to-Peer Legal Defense Fund at downhillbattle.org . Defendents from this round of suits are going to be added soon also.
It should also be noted that before filing this round of 80 suits, the RIAA sent letters to 200 people demanding settlements or else. While they portray this as a compromise, it actually just lets the RIAA avoid media scrutiny of those 200 people, keeping the next Brianna Lahara out of the spotlight. These extra-judicial fines are now happening in secret.
I think this sums it up for me in suggesting that the music industry is merely an annoying tune that you hear over and over in your head until you buy it just to shut your head up. Also the last episode of southpark said it all for me: if artists went on strike i wouldnt care id just download some old music or some other bands and most artists are arrogent assholes that are only in it for the money. This sounds totally trolling and mod me down if you have to but the RIAA does not have an absolute just moral cause, their arguments are debatable at best, and threatening people with their vast legal power is just not cool.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
You're missing some of the more inflammatory points of the RIAA's tactics here: The amounts they're demanding for compensation. There is no question that they are telling people, in essence, "Settle now for $2/3/4/5000 or we will take you to court and tag you for $15,000,000." We know they are doing this. When they claim "damages" in the amount of $150,000 per file, then people become angry because they know that this claim is unreasonable (think of it: if 10,000 people download a copy of the file from you only, the RIAA is alleging that they lost $15.00 per download on that one song. At that rate, CDs should be priced at about $165.00 each, assuming they average 11 tracks.
This doesn't even touch on legal costs. If the RIAA sends me a letter demanding $2000 in settlement, I have the choice to pay it or hire a lawyer to go to court and represent me. Even if I am innocent, I must hire a competent lawyer and I can expect to pay around $400 per hour for his services. Assuming the case is an "average" civil case and takes 10 hours of the lawyer's time, I'm looking at $4000 in billable hours alone, before filing fees and other costs (the lawyer will charge you for his transit costs and other expenses while defending you). If I try to recover my expenses with a counter-suit, I can expect a lengthy process fueled by a behemoth organization that can afford to put high-priced lawyers on autopilot and forget about them. Innocent people may not like to settle, but sometimes they may take the cheaper way out.
These are the things that make people really angry about what the RIAA is doing. Not that they're defending their properties or business, but that they're doing so in an egregiously "predatory" manner, seemingly outside the conventional channels of the law and with the threatening club of unreasonable penalties to back them up.