Fear of upsetting their paying customers was not an issue (it's good to be a monopoly), but fear of upsetting hackers who could show up their poor security makes them question their poor decisions. Sad.
Maybe his analogy is not so bad after all. Making digital copies of currency is not illegal. The internet is full of copies of money. It only becomes illegal if you print it out and try to pass it off as the real thing in exchange for something else (i.e. "Commercial Infringment"). I'd be totally in favor of treating copyrighted items the same way (legal to distribute digital copies on the internet but illegal to print/burn a copy and sell as the real thing).
I'm surprised that the albums-per-person number is still as high as it is. It's basically the same now as it was in 1975 (after which there was a jump as people re-bought albums they already owned on 8-track and cassette) and in 1982 (after which there was a jump as people re-bought albums they already owned on CD). Since people can now rip CDs they already own to whatever digital format they want, there is no more need to re-buy albums (which based on this graph, seems to be what the record business is counting on).
I'd love to see a graph of singles-per-person. I suspect that graph would look very different, with a gradual decline from the 1970's to 1990's (as 45RPM singles fall out of favor and tapes/CDs didn't have a viable single format) then a huge jump when iTunes is released. I bet the RIAA don't want to show that graph in court.
The team owners would be a lot more likely to go after the tattoo artists than the fans for PR reasons (suing fans looks bad), legal reasons (fewer people to sue) and financial reasons (tattoo businesses have deeper pockets than individual fans). They could even offer tattoo artists an option to avoid getting sued by purchasing a license to reproduce the logos (just like a cap or t-shirt manufacturer would) and create a whole new revenue stream. I believe a similar setup currently exists for cake decorators who want to produce cakes in the likeness of copyrighted characters (Disney, etc) despite the fact that a cake is not exactly a "fixed medium".
You pay the water company to use water in the plumbing fixtures of your house, but some people buy a "tethering device" (also known as a hose) to use water outdoors as well. Clearly that is theft since you're only paying for indoor water.
Keep in mind that unions are a monopoly on labor in the same way patents are a monopoly on design and copyrights are a monopoly on art. I can't work in many industries without joining a union and paying dues, just like I can't produce many products without paying a patent troll. Unions were created out of the same protectionist, anti-competition mindset that patents and copyrights are, so in many ways, unions are the natural allies of patent trolls.
Having lived through the Canadian transition from one (and two) dollar bills to heavy coins I can tell you that the only reason there wasn't more complaining is because we were already moving to more debit/credit card transactions at the time; something which makes the banks rich on transaction fees and encourages people to spend more than they have (we all know the effect that had on the economy). So to my American neighbours, I recommend holding on to your singles as long as you can (besides, strippers get angry when you stick coins in their panties).
If the shoes were confiscated at the border, he didn't even get a chance to see the shoes he bought before he was sued. Even if he were able to tell the difference, he was never given the chance. I wonder how much Nike paid the judge?
The design of the survey question reveals more about the person who wrote the question than it does about the respondents (i.e. he believes everything people value has a monetary price tag). The survey would likely have very different results if it asked "If there was a tight race in your district and every vote was critical to deciding the outcome, how much money would someone have to offer you to stay home and not vote." Essentially it asks the same thing, but puts morally distasteful "paying for votes" on the other side of the equation.