He's 29? So he started when he was 14? Is it his parents' backyard? He looks more like around 43 to me. Very WACKY, either way.

This could be a step towards unraveling the argument that making available = infringement. If it's ruled that it's legal to store copies of your tunes online, then it becomes a question of how much security on those files is considered a reasonable effort to keep them from being available to others. That seems a murky enough topic to me that eventually the focus of infringement will shift back to the downloader, but I think cases against downloaders are unwinnable. It's much harder to prove on that end. I don't know of any that have been brought by the record companies.

@5 -- actually it doesn't assume that everyone works in the city at all. you can read the model summary to see how it calculates the transportation costs.

education is another important factor that should be considered, but transportation is generally the second biggest household expense, outside of housing, so this is a step in the right direction.

It seems to me that being able to buy and resell goods, whether physical or not, is the cornerstone of our capitalist society. It sets a strange precedent for the future of digital information to restrict this right. It doesn't seem like a big deal to give it up for a $1 song, but what about something that costs $1000 that you can't resell? It would have some interesting effects on market price. It eliminates the notion of collector's items. It also enables companies to pull media right out of existence (and historical record) if they are the one legitimate source of obtaining it-- convenient if the material was highly controversial for some reason. And of course restricting the ability to share it in any way ultimately prevents it from having any lasting cultural significance.

"I'm pretty sure that they sued downloaders as well. Otherwise this discussion might be considered moot. Can anyone clarify?"

In the current case it seems not to be the case. Over on Ars Technica they're discussing whether simply "making available" constitutes infringement. If so, does that means all libraries that offer CDs are infringing as well? How does fair use come into play here? Is it wrong to offer a song for someone to listen to, review, and then delete? Is that still infringement?

How does the industry address it or how do consumers? I think the industry thinks of it as a physical object OR a license, whichever is most convenient for them at the time. They want you to pay for each and every format separately. They want you to pay every time you listen to your copy. They want you to pay every time you hear a song playing anywhere-- on the radio, on TV, or in a bar.

On a philosophical level, I believe the recording should be as near perfect a capture of the original as possible, and you buy a license to it, and once you've bought it you can have it in whatever format you want. An inferior recording should be returned to them as damaged goods.

On a practical level, I can look at my options and make the decision that's best for me. I can buy it new on CD for $15, on iTunes for $10, maybe on tape for $8 or used for $6, and i'm willing to accept that for each drop in price i get a drop in quality. I wouldn't buy a lousy tape for $5 and then think I could download a lossless recording for free. I would however expect that if I owned a copy on CD that I could download a CD or lesser-quality version online for free. But I believe that has already been proven as infringement by previous cases-- MP3.com, for example.

Please correct me if i'm wrong, but I believe of all the lawsuits they've brought against people, none of them have been for downloading music, but for OFFERING music for download. I'm guessing because it's WAY harder to prove the other. So the whole "copying is stealing" doesn't have anything to do with this case.

It's font to have font but you have to know how!