Sheesh, you are all making me feel like an idiot for bothering to post to begin with! Oh well, let me try to explain my thoughts. As naive as they may be...
I don't know, but making billions in profits seems pretty much like not hurting to me. If the artists signs the contract and they don't get enough of that money, well, that's their fault for signing a bad contract along with those who were greedy enough to not give them a better deal to begin with. That said, I am not sure I understand the issue that you mean here. What, that they could make more? Well, everyone could make more money, but there's no way to prove that they lost X amount when their own numbers typically don't match those done by surveyors outside the industry. If anything, the numbers I have seen touted online show piracy has little effect if at all, but to piss them off for making billions less than the billions they already do. Not that I blame them, mind you. But, not everyone thinks making more is necessarily a good indicator because how can you say that Pirate A would have bought it and Pirate B wouldn't have? You can't, even though they try to put out numbers that make it appear that way. But, what do I know, I am naive and who knows whether either side is worth believing the numbers they spew forth. I am just saying there's contradictions all over the place on just how bad they have it.
As for economics 101, I never took that class, always thought it meant what's best for business, so to speak. I guess I am wrong, and am big enough to say so. Sorry!
I guess I figured, that if selling for less could (I'd assume) realistically earn more profits from having people who wouldn't have purchased otherwise do so (which it possibly could in today's marketplace, piracy or no piracy) well, how is that not good for the industry and all involved? Hell, the whole pay-to-download services could be utilized much better. Though, it seems they are against change, whether it's from piracy (which I am not even really taking into account to be honest) or just changing the medium to one that people would consider buying more than they currently do with CDs. Really, I don't get it, wouldn't that be a good thing? Maybe I am giving people too much credit to think they too would buy the music if the price was at the price point the industry said they would sell for or even slightly higher.
Either way, this is all opinion based from what I have read and having talked with other people over the years. I'll be the first to admit I am not fully aware of all the facts, but I do get tired of facts thrown around here and elsewhere just as blindly by both sides. Sorry if I came across as thinking I knew better than the rest, didn't mean it that way. Overall, there has already been links earlier that show some of what I was trying to get at, I guess some just can't get past the piracy issue. Since I am not even using that as my basis for my point and most seem to be, I might as well keep quite.
Oh and BTW, I don't know about anyone else, but I do think we "are" so-called, screwed over, by copy-protection and the other areas that the industry uses that make lawfully backing-up people's legitimately purchased CDs impossible. I don't buy protected discs, but many seem to have tried at least in the past to hide the fact if they have such protections. So, I think I and others have good reason to feel that way, the Sony Rootkit anyone?
Regardless though, I don't care if it's a luxury item or not, when I pay the manufacturer for their item, on sale or not, there should be no extra hassles to come along with it in my view. I bought it legitimately, that should be the only thing that matters. Some might disagree I guess, but money spent is still money spent. Basically, there's no need to alienate those who are the reason you make the money you do. Oh well, take that as you well...
Jam it back in, in the dark.