From the linked article, RIAA's second claim:
The Librarian ignored 25 separate licensing agreements the RIAA had previously agreed to and submitted as evidence, as well as 115 similar deals signed by the individual record companies. If these agreements -- all of which represented rates born by a fair market -- were appropriately considered by the Librarian, the final royalty rate would have been significantly higher.
Now, I don't understand this. They've already squashed webcasting. What is this about? The standard explanations don't seem to cut it. This can't be naked greed, or they'd be trying to re-grow the market so as to make money from it. It can't just be control, they've already squashed the market, which is effectively 100% controlled, no? What's the deal, here? Are the lawyers just bored or something? Has the RIAA lost the ability to think even remotely rationally?