Apparently, the music industry, believes it's not getting what it feels it deserves. From what little I know, the musicians are not the primary beneficiaries of what you pay for when purchasing an album or single. Middle-men, distributors and other leaches of the industry/system take a very healthy cut. This is true in the publishing field as well.
I don't think anyone, when asked, has a problem with compensating both artists and those that are directly involved in the production of music. But maintaining the gravy-train for the leaches (i.e. those that add no value to the actual product) is a non-starter. If the prices of the music purchased more accurately reflected the costs of production and went directly to those who produce it, then file sharing (i.e. the urge to get it free) along with the sites that support it, would be eliminated.
I am at a loss as to why I should pay for a file that represents a recording (as it is not the actual recording, it is merely a copy) that was made, in many cases, numerous decades ago, especially if it is for my own use. When cassettes were the rage, one could easily tape from the radio... or tape-to-tape. How is this any different?
As an architect who produces drawings, someone can take my design and easily replicate it by making only slight modifications, and get around copyright. This can have very negative consequences of course, especially if the replicated design is constructed in a jurisdiction outside that which the building was originally designed, but I digress. My point is that copyright laws are problematic in a world that has perfected the ability of replication. Protecting this intellectual property can only go so far.
This is yet another corporation (or cluster of related corporations) surreptitiously taking control of government and subsequently arm-twisting the public into submission.
This has little to nothing to do with the actual musicians or those involved in the production of the art.