Your implied meaning, that is.
So, you're saying "since some people don't steal music over the Internet, then the RIAA has no right to take their money from them"
That's the silliest thing I've ever heard. Perhaps you are familiar with another system that works like this; we usually refer to it here as taxation. You, the user, turn over a certain portion of your earnings to the government and, in return, recieve services from them proportional to your need. There is nothing morally wrong with this - you are helping out the poor and disadvantaged by doing so.
Similarly, through paying this fee to the RIAA, you will be able to continue to enjoy the music that you listen to. What would happen if the major record labels ended up going bankrupt? You certainly wouldn't be able to get music anymore. Odds are, you would be a lot more pissed off than you were when you found out you just had to pay a fee to compensate for the crimes committed by others.
Hell, I can draw another parallel to taxation here: if you think this is so goddamned unfair, then what are you doing by electing officials who continue to support the concept of imprisonment by the state? You are, after all, paying the upkeep for other people who have committed wrongs. Surely, they should all be executed at minimal cost to you, the taxpayer, because you shouldn't be paying for their mistakes. Or should you? I certainly hope nobody here is heartless enough to support such a position - we have enough people imprisoned already for frivolous drug offenses, the last thing we should do is start executing them.
So really, when reflected upon, this isn't such a bad thing. What you are really doing is paying for a service rendered by the RIAA. Sure, there may be some who don't listen to music, but by and large, such a luddite probably doesn't have an internet connection, either.
"There are only so many ways one can ask [Jon Katz] what it's like to be buried to the balls in a screaming seven-year-old" - Ian