The man was probably hit with one of their driftnet lawsuits, retained a lawyer to defend himself instead of settling, and has a good line of defense. The RIAA's gambit is to claim that even if all they find on his PC is copies of his owned music, he's still a criminal. They're probably doing this just in case he really isn't a music pirate. (And anybody choosing to take it to court after the Jammie Thomas case is going to be quite aware that you don't take it to the jury unless you really are innocent of file-sharing.)

It's a classic slimy lawyer move, ask for everything, including the ridiculous, just in case the Judge is on PCP when the filings are read. As usual, there's no consideration for just how ridiculous it looks to the public, nor the way it will harden Joe Consumer's opinion about the record labels being corrupt vestiges of a copyright mafia.

It all depends on whether or not they can destroy the concept of Fair Use, which has a long legal history in the U.S. The RIAA wants to treat all music as a one-off licensing deal -- in other words, when you purchase any sort of music, you're purchasing the right to play it in that format, and possibly only on a single, authorized device. I'm sure they would also love to limit how often you can listen to it without paying again.

Idiots. Complete, technophobic, slobbering, greedy idiots.