[sirclueless]

That's a straw-man argument. The question isn't whether file-sharers are net positive or negative. The question is whether if file-sharing were reduced, would the industry be better or worse off. It's entirely possible that if file-sharing was more risky or less accessible, the people who file-share would spend a lot more on music.

I'm pretty sure that the RIAA has never stated that file-sharers are bad for the music industry, just that file-sharing is bad. Those are two different things.

[nitrogen]

I'm pretty sure that the RIAA has never stated that file-sharers are bad for the music industry, just that file-sharing is bad. Those are two different things.

This style of argument has been used extensively by the various media industry associations. There's Valenti's famous Boston strangler analogy, the Home Taping is Killing Music from the BPI, etc. I don't recall any specific references in regards to file sharing, but I'm certain they've been made.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videocassette_recorder#Legal_c...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Taping_Is_Killing_Music

[fpgeek]

The question isn't "if file-sharing were reduced, would the industry be beter or worse off". The question is "if the industry employs specific tactics to reduce file-sharing, will the industry be better or worse off".

Given that the industry's chosen tactics involve frustrating, harassing and suing some of their more enthusiastic customers, you have to wonder...

[ktizo]

"I'm pretty sure that the RIAA has never stated that file-sharers are bad for the music industry"

I'm pretty sure it has. It also sues them as individuals for large sums of money, so if it didn't state exactly that then it would have a very hard time making an argument in court.