OK, so you DO understand this. Why, then, did you imply earlier that CDs should be priced based on their manufacturing costs?
the RIAA and their convicted price gouging members
Please tell us which RIAA members have been convicted of "gouging." (I'll set aside for now the arguments against the whole notion of "gouging" in the first place.)
Demand for their product has dropped pure and simple
What evidence do you have that demand has dropped? The activity on Kazaa and other "file-sharing" services seems to indicate quite a robust demand for their products.
they continue to price as if it hasn't.
Presuming for the sake of argument that demand has indeed dropped and prices haven't been adjusted accordingly, then those misguided pricers will die a natural death. It doesn't justify unauthorized downloading.
So, Sorry they were PRICE FIXING, not PRICE GOUGING.... so much better..
States settle CD price-fixing case
What evidence do you have that demand has dropped?
CD Sales volumes have only dropped in the past 2 years:
Nielsen SoundScan reported this week that 2002 album sales fell from 763 million in 2001 to 681 million. Overall music sales in 2001 had been down 5 percent _ the first decline since SoundScan began tracking music sales in 1991.
By 2001 Napster the granddaddy of the file swapping was already effectively dead... if Digital sharing were the cause for the drop the drop off would have started well ahead of 2001. Fact is, good artists and good albumns still sell well, even in the downard trend, and with file swapping there. Dixie Chicks, Shania, Eminem, Alan Jackson, Avril Legrin have all had very successful sales numbers during the past 2 years in spite of the overall drop in sales.
Reality is this, music industry does not invest in long term artists, they are focused on the next 15 minute person. And when the markets go down because of economics and boredom with new artists, labels traditionally go to catalogs to sell albums.. since they aren't developing artists largely for the long haul, only the big pop one or 2 timers they don't have those catalogues to go to... they have created their own problems.
Country has done a better job at this than pop, which is why it is actually growing its share of sales even in a down market.. it has been making bankable long term stars instead of just the next britanny/spice girls like pop has done.... they have the go to catalogue in the down market, and their sales reflect it.
People were recording free music off the radio and trading it long before digital file sharing. DFS make make it more convient to share, but it isn't the root of the RIAA's problems... their refusal to look truly at the root of their problems is why they continue to decline. Slower economy, less good new music, no established newer artists in their catalogs = fewer sales period.
I am not arguing that digital file sharing is illegal, but i am not in the least convinced that DFS is the reason RIAA is losing sales. Their ineptitude and poor management is what is losing them sales... DFS is a threat to their stranglehold on distribution and they hate that, but its not the primary reason that I can see for their lower sales numbers.
"Convicted" in a civil court.
Who are the Defendants?
The Distributor Defendants are: Capitol Records, Inc. d/b/a EMI Music Distribution, Virgin Records America, Inc., and Priority Records LLC; Time Warner, Inc., Warner-Elektra-Atlantic Corp., WEA, Inc., Warner Music Group, Inc., Warner Bros. Records, Inc., Atlantic Recording Corporation, Elektra Entertainment Group, Inc., and Rhino Entertainment Company; Universal Music & Video Distribution Corporation, Universal Music Group, Inc., and UMG Recordings, Inc.; Bertelsmann Music Group, Inc. and BMG Music; and Sony Music Entertainment Inc. The Retailer Defendants are: MTS, Inc. d/b/a Tower Records, Musicland Stores Corp., and Trans World Entertainment Corp.