The INDUCE Act seeks to change that by making it punishable to "intentionally induce any violation" of copyright law. Any person or entity found to aid, abet, induce, counsel or procure a violation of copyright law could be faced with very stiff civil penalties and / or lengthy jail sentences. If passed, this act would effectively override the Supreme Court precedent. I am not sure how you prove that the inducement is "intentional".
In a more recent CNet.com article about the INDUCE Act Jessica Litman said that "under the Induce Act, products like ReplayTV, peer-to-peer networks and even the humble VCR could be outlawed because they can potentially be used to infringe copyrights. Web sites such as Tucows that host peer-to-peer clients like the Morpheus software are also at risk for "inducing" infringement."
All of this legal wrangling also ignores the fact that the RIAA is already being compensated for illegal song sharing. After complaining to Congress that CD recording technology would allow users to copy music CD's a royalty was introduced that pays a surcharge to the industry for each recording device and blank media sold. They actually make money when you copy the music.
In the case of Sony, one of the Big 5 companies that make up the RIAA, they are in a particular catch 22. Within Sony there are divisions that produce and distribute both motion pictures and music. They participate in the RIAA and MPAA and rally to fight the illegal downloading and sharing of works that they own the copyright to. However, Sony also has divisions which manufacture CD and DVD recording equipment and blank CD and DVD media. They make equipment like the Network Walkman which is sold for the sheer intent and purpose of playing MP3 files transferred from the Internet or a computer network. They market such products on their ability to "rip" (copy or convert from one format to another) songs faster than competing products. They are providing the very weapons they are trying to fight against.