This is true. They have no regard for the human condition. Profits have to be maximized even if it ruins people's entire lives. But that's capitalism. I disagree with the system, but in the mean time, don't do the crime if you're not willing to do the time.

I think they just target the ones who have downloaded the most. Obviously they're not going to waste their time on someone who downloaded a few songs when there are people out there filling up their terabyte hard drives with huge collections of music. In this context I think I can sympathize with the RIAA.

I personally think it's different from stealing the CD out of the store. When you're stealing the CD, you're stealing property. When you download a song, you're simply sharing art. I personally think art should be something that can be shared. It's not like people are selling bootlegged CD's; they're merely sharing art, just as if they would send a picture of a painting in an email. But in capitalism it doesn't work that way, unfortunately.

I disagree not only for that reason, but I think online file sharing actually does the artists a service. Most people don't download huge collections, especially with peer-to-peer, as the audio quality on most downloads are horrible. Many people get hooked to an artist's music and then go out and buy their CD. In fact, if anyone that I think is doing the artists a disservice is the RIAA; the RIAA targets p2p file sharers, causing everyone to switch to BitTorrent, allowing them to download full CD rips. So now people will actually be downloading the real property as opposed to poor-quality audio files. Causing would-be buyers to stay away from the music store.

But even going after the huge file collectors; I think it's simply ridiculous to sue someone hundreds or perhaps thousands of dollars per CD. The fine should at least be as much as the product costs the company. Otherwise the companies are stealing from the individual, and not the other way around.