I'm not sure that these albums do much good for the humanitarian effort to begin with; people who buy the albums will feel that they've already done something to help and hence donate less through other channels. All I can really see it adding is overhead; it's more of a tool to promote artists and the RIAA than actually increase the amount of aid.
And I guess that by saying this, you are also undermining their effort. Well, maybe even more, those who downloaded the album at least showed some interest in this way of, hm, "helping", and even might buy it later. It's just an compilation, it isn't really worth of downloading just for the music.
It could be said that for every $1 that is scattered across the playing field of charities, it could be more useful to locally administered programs within Haiti. Unfortunately it's lost on the fact that most of the "American" run charities have huge administrative costs that are amazing to me. (And yeah, and it bothers me that CEOs make $200-$500 per YEAR at a non-profit - far more than a person should need or want from a charitable organization.)
I await the days when musicians indirectly related to RIAA donate money to NSPCC or similar children's charity, and then say P2P is partially responsible for child abuse.
Files sharers deprive labels of income > labels pay less tax to the USG > USG cannot afford armour for soldiers > troops die in Iraq of preventable equipment shortages
Voilà, file sharers are killing american soldiers overseas.
But wait, there's more. File sharers are killing american soldiers, but they're not a declared state army. Therefore they're non-soldier enemy combatants, who as we all know can be sent to Gitmo without trial! What are we waiting for?
In World War II, the first file-sharers nearly cost the Allies the war. Every time a Jimmy Dorsey record was "loaned" (pirated) out to a fellow soldiers, Hitler won another battle.
