If SOPA/PIPA would have been ineffective, why did they push it so hard?
I can think of a couple of things:
1. They didn't really push it all that hard, the RIAA thought they could just slip it through with a little help from their "friends" in Congress. They were genuiely surprised by the upwelling of opposition.
2. They've got some ulterior motive than just externalizing the costs of copyright enforcement. A "feint within a feint", maybe, or maybe the RIAA is a tool of some other, greater, force.
If you create an environment of fear or distrust, where many players are more interested in appearing to support the organization by doing what's expected, rather than actually supporting the organization by doing what's right, you'll end up with highly inappropriate decisions being made and actions being taken.
If you've never studied organizational behavior, this aspect (how group decisionmaking goes wrong) is a huge part of the field. Christensen's "Innovator's Dilemma" and Olson's "Logic of Collective Action" are among the better known of these failures.
> maybe the RIAA is a tool of some other, greater, force.
Honestly, I don't think it needs to be that complicated.
RIAA is the anonymous 'evil' face that Sony, EMI, Universal and Warner use to do their dirty work. It doesn't matter what RIAA does because their backers are protected from public ire.
As long as RIAA's backers are protected, RIAA can and will do whatever they think they they can get away with, no matter how unethical, if it results in even a tiny gain for their backers.
People who want to oppose RIAA just need to do one thing - call the organization what is: SONY, Universal, EMI, Warner.
It isn't "RIAA" that's pushing for internet censorship. RIAA is nothing. Blame Sony. Blame EMI, Blame Universal, Blame Warner. The rubbish will then stop.
I'm not clear on why, but the *AAs seem intent on controlling distribution, not just making money from it. SOPA and PIPA would have given them a way to control things even if it wouldn't really make them more money.
Focusing on controlling distribution is interesting, and indeed, the *AAs do seem intent on control. But that just moves the question one level down: why focus on control? Isn't micro-control of stuff like distribution usually externalized by corporations? Why try to control something that any thought at all leads you to say "why bother?"
Why wouldn't they focus on that? It allows them to control the market for profit and so it's in their financial interests to control distribution as much as possible.
Just as its in everyone else's interest to make them unable to do so (and that includes the artist's interest).
The RIAA seems content to antagonize their own customers to reduce piracy. Multiple studies have shown that the biggest pirates are also the music industry's best customers. They won't release a complete list of all their covered works, let alone put them all up for sale somewhere convenient.
I can think of a couple of things:
1. They didn't really push it all that hard, the RIAA thought they could just slip it through with a little help from their "friends" in Congress. They were genuiely surprised by the upwelling of opposition.
2. They've got some ulterior motive than just externalizing the costs of copyright enforcement. A "feint within a feint", maybe, or maybe the RIAA is a tool of some other, greater, force.