RIAA Tires of Suing Babies and Elderly; Moves on to Paralyzed Stroke Victims

False dichotomy, I'm afraid. It is quite possible to be offended at both of the situations you describe.

Brian: Being incensed at the RIAA doesn't stop me from being horrified at the injustice of our bloodthirsty legal system. If I were limited to being incensed at only one thing at a time, I wouldn't know what to do with myself! :)

But as far as this RIAA crap: if it were just as simple as the guy saying, "It wasn't me," then I, for one, wouldn't be so incensed at this entire RIAA campaign.

Instead, unless the RIAA is cowed by publicity like this article into withdrawing the suit, this guy is now going to have to find himself a lawyer -- one who knows something about copyright law and about computers in case the the action gets to trial. Even to present a motion to dismiss, the attorney is going to have to depose witnesses and gather documentary evidence that this guy was not where the RIAA claims he was. He's also going to be pressured to just settle -- even though he didn't do it -- to avoid the hassle and the expense of a trial.

Because it's a civil suit, he's not entitled to a public attorney, so the attorney he's going to have to hire will be a private attorney, who doesn't get paid unless he wins, but does need some money for expenses. Given the client's lousy financial situation, the lawyer, if he can even find one to take this case, will have to front the money for the trial and all its documentation, expert witnesses, legal research, etc., giving the lawyer an incentive to convince the client to negotiate a settlement -- even though his client didn't do anything. The process is likely to take months, filled with anxiety and frustration. In the end, if he wins, his legal fees are covered, and if there was a countersuit filed for malicious prosecution or something, he might get a settlement or he might not.

And RIAA goes off and files another batch of scattershot suits -- suits which are designed to raise a public state of anxiety, but NOT really to recoup any significant portion of the industry's claimed "losses" or to address a particularly egregious wrong.

So, what do you call it when one group decides to attack its "enemies" in unpredictable locations and at random times, using "any means necessary", without real concern for innocence or guilt, insisting its devastating effects on un-involved individuals is inescapable "collateral damage", all for the purpose of creating a societal state of fear which will motivate the masses to accede to their demands?

If the government is complicit in the actions, then I call it fascism. If the government is powerless to take action, then I call it terrorism.