IMHO the music industry has to get with the times.
Well, of course, everyone does. However, there are different perspectives regarding what that means. In a digital world, "getting with the times" means protecting digital assets with copy protection. Otherwise, you're basically subjecting your assets to the whims of the lowest-common denominator in society. Alternatively, "getting with the times" means no longer producing content -- essentially going out of the business, because technology has made it such that there is no longer any money to be made. I'm sure you can see how that would be the
last choice option.
With music, that's not really a big deal. The production of music is cheap enough that failure of the industry isn't going to have much impact. You mentioned movies, though. There, money matters much more. And if assets cannot be sufficiently protected, you'll simply see only the cheap-o suppliers continuing to operate. Quality will be history.
No one cared back in the 60 & 70's when kids taped stuff from the radio.
Jay hit the nail on the head:
He downloaded and distributed. Offering those files over the internet for everyone to download and redistribute does cost the record industry.
There was no concern about people doing that back in the analog age, because each copy resulted in sufficient degradation that the illegal distribution was not a significant competitor for the legal copies.
The fine awarded against a Minnesota woman is absolutely absurd. I could see them fining someone equal to the value lost or a fine based on a value verses theft. But these jurists are moron's.:dunce:
It does seem a bit excessive though.
Not in context: If people just lose what they made from the enterprise, then losing a case like this becomes simply a managed risk of doing business. Punitive fines like this make committing such crimes something that all but the most transgressive of people would avoid.
