To trot out an analogy I like to use: Most normal folks will sympathize with a businessman who has a shoplifting problem, provide any information they might happen to have about it source, and certainly not engage in shoplifting themselves. However, if the businessman introduces obnoxious security measures (subjecting customers to body-cavity searches, sending goons to sneak into houses to search for stolen goods), most people will say "to hell with you" and even turn their symapthies toward the shoplifters.
That's what's happening to the RIAA's members, and they've brought it on themselves.
So you were an anti-music-pirating activist before the RIAA got involved?
I'm not real happy about the upcoming security measures that I've heard about (such as DRM), but I see them as the inevitable consequence of the widespread looting of the music industry through online copyright violation networks. I see them as an attempt to put bars on the windows and doors of a store which has been losing revenue to internet file 'sharing'.
Would I like to shop at a store with a bulletproof shield between me and the cashier?... or at a store which intrusively checks for shoplifters? No. But I don't blame the store for what's about to ensue... I blame the music 'sharing' networks and the people who are using them to violate copyright. They are responsible for the upcoming wave of inconvenience that we're all about to experience.
There are a lot of honest people with large music collections who only want to make backup copies, make best-hits CD's of already purchased works, and other fair-use activities... who will not be able to do so because of music 'sharing' networks. If not for the amorality of the copyright violators, I think DRM would be dead in the water.
But if you (or anyone) has an idea of how to stop internet copyright violators without inconveniencing everyone in the process, I'd love to hear it. But, IMO, there isn't a middle ground that will solve this problem.