I'm ignorant of the "legal" system in Venezuela (quotes are used since I'm skeptical of the rule of law in that country), but is the burden of proof on the accused in this case?

Actually, the understanding of historical concepts and trends evolves quite a bit. That is why open textbooks could be such a boon - it will allow teachers to exploit new research, rather than parroting an antediluvian consensus that have been since been altered considerably.

No one, for example, takes Gibbon's argument on the Fall of the Roman Empire seriously anymore; similarly, no one takes the argument that Islamic cultures economically failed (in comparison with Europe) because of anti-capitalist religious precepts seriously either. Yet both were a part of serious teaching a few decades ago (the age of some textbooks).

I remember one textbook I had as a child argued that the reason that Lowland Scots prospered in comparison with Highland Scots was due the Protestant work ethic bestowed upon them through Prebyterianism - in comparison, the Highlanders succumbed to their lethargic Catholic proclivities. Hilarious in hindsight, but slightly disturbing as real teaching.

That is not how this system works.

The RIAA campaigned for laws that were in the best interest of their respective shareholders. Copyright laws were passed. The RIAA issues lawsuits based on those laws. The Department of Justice carries out the letter of the law. There is no reason to complain about entities that continue to function as they were intended.

Personally, I would be displeased with actions of the RIAA if I was a shareholder. I do not believe that I ever will be, however, as the standard business structure of this industry does not seem to be viable.