Say what you will about what copyright law *should be* but previous posters are telling you what copyright law *is now*. Unfortunately for OP he looks like he's dead in the water under not just current copyright law, but trademark as well. If you don't like the situation, you've already used soap box so get on to using ballot box and hopefully you can get it changed without resorting to ammo box.

More likely than not, federal diversity jurisdiction. Happens if you have none of the plaintiffs in the same state as any of the defendants and the amount in controversy is > $75,000. Also can happen if you have a federal claim and a state law claim (involving the same set of facts and circumstances) comes along for the ride under supplemental jurisdiction.

It may have been premature for Amazon to remotely delete under 17 USC 503 and 509 but those sections clearly authorize a court of competent jurisdiction to "order the destruction or other reasonable disposition of all copies or phonorecords found to have been made or used in violation of the copyright owner's exclusive rights, and of all plates, molds, matrices, masters, tapes, film negatives, or other articles by means of which such copies or phonorecords may be reproduced." Amazon, having the technical capability, might have been compelled by order to exercise that capability. Now, Amazon did not have to resort to deletion without a court order but may have seen the writing on the wall: either get screwed by the publisher for willful copyright infringement or screwed by a class action breach of contract by Kindle users and picked the lesser of two evils. Ideally Amazon should have bit the bullet for the consumer experience by docking the company who put the unauthorized 1984 up on the Kindle marketplace and getting authorization for either the existing or a new copy of 1984 for its consumers in as seamless a transition as possible but of course then the shareholders would have gotten angry and sued Amazon for doing something clearly unprofitable leaving pretty much no one happy.

As much as I would like to hold that infringing multiple songs off an album constitutes a single infringement, I don't see how that can be reconciled with the fact that each song may have different lyricists, composers, singers, etc - each of which have their own part of the bundle of sticks that constitute the copyrights in a song (god save you if it is a sound recording). Even if one were to take that the band (and by extension the RIAA) has assignments of copyright from all the various people who have a stick in the combined work, that still leaves the problem of multiple copyrights, works, and infringements.

At least from a damages perspective though, we should treat all of those infringements as having a net total worth of that song's fraction of the album's value. Everyone might not be particularly happy with their fraction of a sale but in theory everyone agreed to the contracts that setup the whole divvying scheme (bargaining power is a discussion for another day).