[8] RIAA also participates in the collective rights management of sound recordings, and it is responsible for certifying gold and platinum albums and singles in the United States.

The largest and most influential of the members are the "Big Three": Within the major three music groups, it represents high-profile record labels such as Atlantic, Capitol, RCA, Warner, Columbia, and Motown.

Reflecting additional growth in music sales, the Diamond award was instituted in 1999 for albums or singles selling ten million units.

Studies conducted since the association began its campaign against peer-to-peer file-sharing have concluded that losses incurred per download range from negligible[27][28] to moderate.

Likewise, it has sued individuals suspected of file sharing, notably college students, parents of file-sharing children and at least one dead person.

[32][33] In late 2008, they announced they would stop their lawsuits,[34] and instead attempt to work with ISPs to persuade them to use a three-strike system for file sharing involving issuing two warnings and then cutting off Internet service after the third strike.

[35] RIAA names defendants based on ISP identification of the subscriber associated with an IP address,[36] and as such do not know any additional information about a person before they sue.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation and Public Citizen oppose the ability of RIAA and other companies to "strip Internet users of anonymity without allowing them to challenge the order in court".

RIAA's methods of identifying individual users had, in some rare cases, led to the issuing of subpoenas to persons dead or otherwise incapable of file-sharing.

[41] In February 2007, RIAA began sending letters accusing Internet users of sharing files and directing them to web site P2PLAWSUITS.COM, where they can make "discount" settlements payable by credit card.

[43][46][47] In October 1998, RIAA filed a lawsuit in the Ninth U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco claiming the Diamond Multimedia Rio PMP300 player violated the 1992 Audio Home Recording Act.

[48] In 2003, RIAA sued college student developers of LAN search engines Phynd and Flatlan, describing them as "a sophisticated network designed to enable widespread music thievery".

Sharman Networks agreed to a global settlement of litigation brought against it by the Motion Picture Association of America, the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry, and by RIAA.

On October 12, 2007, RIAA sued Usenet.com seeking a permanent injunction to prevent the company from "aiding, encouraging, enabling, inducing, causing, materially contributing to, or otherwise facilitating" copyright infringement.

That ruling states that companies cannot be held liable for contributory infringement if the device they create is "capable of significant noninfringing uses".

[56] Furthermore, the parties had appealed to a federal court for damage assessments and awards, which could amount to several millions of dollars for the music industry.

The Supreme Court of the United States abrogated the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act as unconstitutional, while RIAA had argued the opposite view.

In 1999, Mitch Glazier, a Congressional staff attorney, inserted, without public notice or comment, substantive language into the final markup of a "technical corrections" section of copyright legislation, classifying many music recordings as "works made for hire", thereby stripping artists of their copyright interests and transferring those interests to their record labels.

[60][61] Shortly afterwards, Glazier was hired as Senior Vice President of Government Relations and Legislative Counsel for the RIAA, which vigorously defended the change when it came to light.

[62] The battle over the disputed provision led to the formation of the Recording Artists' Coalition, which successfully lobbied for repeal of the change.

[66] According to Parker Higgins, former Director of Copyright Activism at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), this takedown request was a "throwback threat" analogous to the DeCSS controversy.