Slashdot's summary puts it best:

"If they were doing it to 'send a message,' the messages have been received loud & clear: (1) the big four record labels are managed by idiots; (2) the RIAA's law firms have as much compassion for their client as they do for the lawsuit victims; (3) suing end users, or alleged end users, is a losing game. I don't know why p2pnet.net begrudges the RIAA's boss his big compensation; he did a good job... for the lawyers."

To give you an idea of the scale, the current United States Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is around $14 Trillion so the RIAA is asking for ~10.7% of what ALL of America makes in a YEAR

@cGt2099 I can agree to that, but also realize that part of it seems like the record labels are just dumping all their responsibilities on the bands and still using the same profit model...if the bands have to do more...they SHOULD be compensated better

I really like the songs "The Flight of Apollo" and "Young London"

@SUAD I'm not going to try to condone pirates, because I can't...BUT that doesn't mean they're the ones killing the music industry.

The music industry is killing themselves. Between suing their own bands for connecting with fans by releasing ONE song on the internet to create a buzz for them (which in turn could mean more record sales - which benefits the labels moreso than the band),

Alienating fans with massive lawsuits that are by no means reasonable...1.92 MILLION dollars for what 25 songs? SERIOUSLY!!!! BADDDDD PR Move

And finally, the fact that the music industry could not adapt to the current times, and still can't. The recording industry still thinks it 1990 and has put wayyyy to much into physical sales rather than the digital market. They've started to move over now, but its still hurting them. The fact of the matter is that they're used to charging exorbitant prices and can't fathom the fact that people are sick of it. It's no surprise that iTunes sales plummeted as soon as Apple let the labels charge $1.29 per song. And how many songs or what percentage were therein priced at $0.69? $0.99?

I'm going with:
$1.29: 90%
$0.99: 9.99%
$0.69 0.01%

INSTEAD of keeping a lower price, they went with the higher price so they could go back to gouging customers. They could've kept the price at $0.99 or maybe even move some more to $0.69 and sacrifice a higher profit margin for more sales.

What makes you more profit:

You sell 10 products at $10 a piece

You sell 50 products at $5 a piece

You tell me...