Technology can be empowering.
The music industry did have a point: the nature of downloadable music is not like a cassette tape or VHS, given the ease of recording and mass distribution. Its actions prosecuting individual violators in retrospect, however, were a public relations disaster and accomplished no social good. From a utilitarian standpoint and in terms of the general good, monitoring and legally sanctioning suppliers rather than focusing on the demand side of the industry seems to be the best way to ensure that file sharing is conduced in an ethical manner.
Violations will likely continue to occur, given that many nations, especially in the developing world, have a less proprietary notion of copyright than the U.S. And fans may still feel angry about having to pay money at all for music. However, artists trying to sell their work have a right to price their content as they see appropriate, and it is a consumer's right to pay or not pay for the music, not to decide that everyone...
Consumers must understand that for the future health of the industry, some compensation is required for musicians, just as the industry must understand that new technology has changed music in a permanent fashion, and it is unlikely they will ever be able to extract as a high a price from fans for music as in the past. "As technologies evolve…for those old media to survive, they must adapt, finding new business models and new, compelling content to offer" (Fisher 2007).
References
Crews, Kenneth D. (2001). Case study a&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc.: Implications for the Digital Music Library. Retrieved March 30, 2011 at http://dml.indiana.edu/pdf/AnalysisOfNapsterDecision.pdf
Fisher, Marc. (2007, December 30). Download uproar: Record industry goes after personal use.
Washington Post Staff Writer. Retrieved March 30, 2011 at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
