RIAA spends 58mi on lawyer fees, gets about 2% back.

Well, I was a math major, and the answer is "Not necessarily." (Not that you need any math to understand why)

Is money recouped through legal avenues the only way the RIAA stands to benefit by launching a massive legal assault? No, of course not. It also gets to scare the bejeesus out of people who might have thought about downloading or uploading pirated music, and choose not to, because of the thought of a lawsuit threatening their financial future. So, in theory, there's the possibility that the RIAA has also gained by reducing the loss of earnings due to piracy.

I'm not saying this has been a success for the RIAA, or even that it has been effective at all. Obviously piracy and legitimate sales are not zero-sum. But it's not quite as simple as this article (and the various others making the same point) makes out.

This Beta News recovery statistic is short-sighted. If the recording industry doesn't defend itself against piracy through these lawsuits, they will lose a lot more than $57 million. I view their actions as $57 million well-spent on self-defense. I also think it's a shame that people have such low respect for intellectual property that this is necessary.

If you don't believe in intellectual property, ask yourself: how would your startup would fare without IP? If you create something new, no one else has a right to it. They should only have it on terms that you choose, because without you, it wouldn't exist.

Certainly, there is a great deal of benefit to collaborating with others. But without rights as defined above, collaboration on mutually beneficial terms is impossible (e.g., both immoral because someone gets ripped off - and impractical because innovation ceases).