They want people to either pay or not listen. Not listen & pay if you can. They want music to be the same as milk or shoes. You either buy it, or you don't have

They want people to either pay or not listen. Not listen & pay if you can. They want music to be the same as milk or shoes. You either buy it, or you don't have it. They want the laws, which are on their side, to be enforced to the point where the great majority of people do not break them. That means harsher penalties, more penalties or both. They don't want to send the message that they are ruthless bastards, necessarily. They want to send the message that the it is not in people's best interests to download free stuff. Doing this by making it risky in the way that speeding past a cop shop is risky (very likely to be caught), is too hard. So they opt for making it like not having fire insurance a one-in-a-lot chance of being ruined. I don't agree with the law, with the ruling or their morals. I think that this kind of enforcement is immoral. Deterence is not the only thing behind enforcement of laws. Punishment/deterrence should not be concentrated in one person. It's like saving money on police patrols by catching only 1/4 of burglars we currently do but shooting them to make up the difference. I'm just arguing that the RIAA are rational. Her capacity to pay doesn't interest them.