An interesting blog entry on CNN Money (unfortunately it has now dropped off the headline list and the search function won't respond) contends that absolutely zero RIAA file sharing lawsuits have made it to court.
There are several reasons for this, including the general opinion that the RIAA has almost no legal grounds for any of the lawsuits it attempts to prosecute.
So in a move reminiscent of mob racketeering tactics, the RIAA deliberately targets parents it believes will be easily intimidated into settling with the music industry. Unfortunately due to the fear of the horrendous costs involved in dealing with the RIAA's lawyers, as well as the fact they can not be sure their children haven't been illegally downloading copyrighted material, parents often settle.
However in the rare case that any sort of legal challenge is made to their claims, the RIAA without exception have dropped the matter completely.
Why?
Well several reasons. First of all their intimidatory tactics are probably illegal. It wouldn't surprise me if someone eventually sued the RIAA on charges of intimidation and racketeering.
Secondly the method they use to tie names to the IP addresses of those they believe have participated in file sharing is extremely unreliable. So much so that on several occasions they have attempted to sue those that not only don't have internet connections, but have never owned a computer with which to download music in the first place.
If lawyers were savvy to the fact that
1/there is no reliable method of tying a name with an IP address, (which is something the US Government ought to take onboard the next time it considers forcing internet providers to record everyone's internet activities),
2/it is possible for a user's IP to change multiple times throughout their subscription with a provider, and
3/that an IP address could, over time, end up being used by multiple subscribers;
they could easily dispute the validity of the RIAA's claims.
The RIAA know this, thus legally challenged lawsuits are always dropped.
The blogger responsible for this entry didn't, unfortunately, back up this story with any sort of evidence, however the writer is a respected journalist who is unlikely to simply make stuff up.
However, again unfortunately, he did suggest an extremely bad method of getting out of such a lawsuit should you be targeted. He suggested setting up an open WIFI network, which means anyone that lives or drives within 50-100 feet of your home could have been responsible for any downloads associated with your IP address. He reasons that this would raise enough ambiguity to protect yourself from being sued.
As I said, this is an unfortunate piece of advice, because should you decide to setup such a network then leave it open to whoever lives close enough, or drives by with the appropriate WIFI enabled laptop, not only do you open yourself up to all kinds of security risks, but the legal problems you could face from this action could be very serious.
Imagine a pedophile using your WIFI connection to download child pornography. You don't even have the defense all Internet providers do, in that you have not stated that no one may use your connection for illegal activity, and that if you find they have, you will remove their access. In other words you are effectively condoning any illegal activity committed over your broadband connection.
No a far better defense would be to claim your computer was infected by trojan malware, possibly as part of a farmed network used by hackers to distribute spam, porn and copyrighted material. As Sony have recently proved with their rootkit fiasco, even top quality antivirus and antispyware software will not necessarily protect you from such malware. So it's entirely possible that with the very latest antivirus and antispyware software installed, even a network security professional could become the victim of such an attack.
Conveniently your latest anti-malware purchase would have removed the trojan from your computer, because not only were you protecting yourself (as you are perfectly entitled to do) but you definitely wanted to prevent hackers from using your computer for illegal purposes.
It might work, or not, I don't know - but I do know it's a darn sight better to argue you were hacked than because you allow anyone to use your internet connection, you can't be responsible for what that connection downloads.
Note:- I should probably say, just in case people get the wrong impression, that I don't condone illegally downloading copyright protected material, whether that be music, books, movies, games, etc. And that regardless of whether you think the entertainment industry overcharges you for the legal purchase of their media, that doesn't entitle you to steal it. The way you combat overpricing is to not buy the product, and to let them know the reasons why you aren't buying it. If enough people had that attitude, and didn't give the music industry excuses to sue single parents on fixed incomes, or give them the power to convince Congress to pass consumer unfriendly copy protection laws, prices would eventually come down.