I think not - just record live from internet radio or internet TV. We used tapes for the same reason when all we had were radio, TV and Betamax/VHS.
I remember when the old 8 bit systems used tape loaders. The games would cost 0.99 pence for an old release and 1.99 pence for a new release. That was back in '86. Then cost even less than that before then and that is when the technology was ultra new. Games cartridges cost more but the extra cost was worth it because the games loaded near-instantly. Using a calculator to compare the value of money from 1986 to 2006 (can't do it for 2008 yet):
0.99 pence from 1986 has 2006 worth of £2.00.
1.99 pence from 1986 has a 2006 worth of £4.03
I don't think the games industry can justify charging between 40 and 60 pounds for a game. And likewise, the music and video industries. Most file sharers who breach copyright legislation either a, can't afford the original product; b, can't justify paying the cost of the original content; c, don't care about the rights of the artist; d, consider themselves justified because they feel they've already paid for the item by TV license, previous ownership of a copy of the media (or they have the media but not to hand); e, one of any hundreds of reasons. In other words, people have different reasons.
The only people who will suffer are those who are not tech savvy enough to find alternative ways to get (re-get) media without paying and/or those whom would not buy the media in the first place (many people download entertainment because they can yet otherwise wouldn't ordinarily have an interest in the media).
Personally, I have a mixed opinion as to the justifiability of people file sharing copyrighted material without a legal basis for breaching copyright. The whole copyright, marketing and distribution system needs to be reviewed. Not many people have solely a single place to play media; not all media players play all content type. What do people purchase when they buy media. Do they buy the right to hear, see or load the content with only one device and only have physical ownership of the plastic/silicon on which it comes; or do they buy some other user license? Isn't the idea of portable media that it is "portable." Portable has two meanings: 1, to be movable and 2, to be transferable. The whole issue is currently ambiguous. A more important question about media rights, should a producer be obliged to provide replacement copies of media damaged post purchase regardless of the period between purchase and damage; or should people be able to re-obtain previously purchased media via file sharing provided they have proof of previous ownership?
BTW: most modern media isn't worth having anyway. People should stick to real music as produced in the 60's, 70's and 80's; old Spectrum, Atari 800 and Amstrad CPC games have a quality modern ones don't; and who didn't like the Birds and the Exorcist?