Brad Templeton has coined "Spamigation" for spam litigation, lawsuits that are automated by computers, noting that while suing people can be readily automated so that it's possible to sue millions, legal defenses are much harder to automate.
This means that while it's possible to sue millions, it's impossible for millions to defend against those lawsuits. The RIAA has practically invented this; a friend in the know confided about 18 months back that the RIAA's litigation was actually turning a profit: that is, the RIAA's network of sleazy bounty-hunters, boiler-room intimidators, and software-generated legal threats were costing less to run than they were bringing in through the persecution of American music fans.
That means that there's no technical reason the music industry can't individually sue all 70 million American file-sharers. Indeed, that might be their last profitable business-model in an era when they refuse to give sell what people will buy: DRM-free music at a reasonable price.
The RIAA strategy is an example of a new legal phenomenon that
I have dubbed "spamigation" — bulk litigation that's only
become practical due to the economies of scale of the computer
era. We see spamigation when a firm uses automation to send
out thousands of cease and disist letters threatening legal
action. We saw it when DirecTV took the customer database
for a vendor of smartcard programmers and bulk-litigated
almost everybody in it…The RIAA uses systems to gather lists of alleged infringers,
and bulk-sues them. It has set a price that seems to be
profitable for it, while being low enough that it is not
profitable for the accused to mount a defence, as they do
not get the economies of scale involved.
(via Michael Geist)
