I have been trying really hard not to stir the pot up on this one, then I noticed a few things. I am assuming that, aside from avatars that are obviously personal photographs, many of the pro-RIAA members are violating copyright laws as the RIAA views them.
I am assuming that Newsweek, the artist who painted Kraimer (sp?), and the alcohol bottle photographer all copyrighted their works. If the RIAA claims that playing copyrighted music for the general public is copyright infringement, is displaying copyrighted artwork for the general public also copyright infringement? What about downloading the images, as individuals had to do in order to upload them as avatars? Even if you bought the alcohol, Kraimer poster, newsweek magazine, you didn't buy the right to download copyright images, or the copyright on the bottle design.
To continue further, using RIAA logic, this would place damages at $150,000 per infraction. See
here for explanation, I realize I am being a tad facetious.
Also many here seem to try to cloud the issue with statements along the lines "think of the artists." The RIAA owns the copyright on music, not the bands. Once a band signs to a label, they sign over the copyright material for 35 years. The RIAA tried to use the "work for hire" clause to keep the copyright material from the artists indefinitely. This was ultimately shot down by the courts for the reasons previously mentioned.
Furthermore, the RIAA is a collaboration of label companies, and makes up around 90% of the music market share. The group has in the past removed CD's from shelves (thereby making the internet the only available source), and purposely inflated the price of a CD.
While these actions may be legal, it does not make them moral. The original artists generally do not see much, if any, revenue from album sales. Merchandise and concerts are their main source of income. Furthermore, as far as I can tell, no artist has received any of the damages the RIAA has recovered from these private suits. The RIAA has attempted to prevent independent bands from emerging, by suing equipment manufacturers. They even attempted to block the first portable MP3 players. Basically we are applying free market principles, when no free market exists.
The argument that people will buy what they like even if it is available for free downloading holds water as given by empirical evidence in a Harvard/NC study, located
here. Granted this report is old, and therefore the effects of Napster reemergence and iTunes/iPods will naturally be excluded.
If I am in complete misunderstanding of this system, please feel free to correct me. Also I pointed to individual's avatars, not as a means of embarrassment or as a form or derision. My objective is for individuals to take a different view of the subject at hand.