What's the reason behind that statement? Is it because it has more utility to you or that demand/wage is generally higher for a programmer than a musician?
Counter argument: what has more utility than bringing people happiness?
The total revenue of RIAA members in 2009 was about $7.7 billion. At their peak around the turn of the century, they were doing a bit under $15 billion. And that is revenue, not profit. The entertainment industry is tiny. Top artists make a lot of money for an individual, but it's only millions, and there aren't a whole lot of them.
That 2009 music industry revenue would pay for, what, 70,000 programmers? And there are a whole lot more programmers than that earning good money.
(Note: I'm only looking at RIAA figures, and ignoring independent artists, so it's understated to a certain extent. However, I believe RIAA revenue still makes up the majority, probably the vast majority, of total music revenue.)
The mind-boggling this is that a billion-dollar industry is bullying a (many?) trillion-dollar industry around. Say what you want about DRM, it's strange to me that software and hardware manufacturers actually put up with it.
But I sure am glad that the music industry CAN "bully" an industry far greater in the same way that I am glad that I can (if I had time and money) to do it because of the freedom of litigation.
The weird thing is that most of the bullying has nothing to do with litigation. DRM pops up all over the place in standards like HDMI, willingly put there by the electronics companies. If they wanted to, they could all go to the entertainment industry and say, "You guys want DRM, but tough luck, we're not building it. If you want to sell your stuff on the next generation of devices, you'll have to work with what we want to build." But they don't, even though in theory they should be able to.
That's fair. Unfortunately the *AA's are writing the laws so they get their way.
Is it at all reasonable they get to force ISPs to enforce their rules without litigation? Is it reasonable to be legally able to charge me $250,000 in the US to circumvent the CSS "encryption" on a DVD?
