Very close to the truth... (Score 1)

Actually, more like $18,999,999.99! Consider for a moment that you could induce the music producers to license a CD to you for re-distribution... (i.e. the normal notion of fair use of a single product sold to a single individual is void) You'd probably have to pay quite a bit for that, don't you think? Of course, the music producers wouldn't want to destroy their ability to distribute thier own music through "record stores" (CD stores?)... or would they? What if you could pay the RIAA more than their otherwise realized income on even fewer sales? What if you could ensure a long-term non-physical distribution channel? Do you think they'd be willing to give you the license then? You betchyer bobby-sox! Three major reasons (off the top of my head) this is possible: 1. Physical production and distribution is expensive compared to electronic methods. 2. CD stores will not exist forever (let's face it) and it's time to plan for the future... You know they probably think about it everytime they take someone to court/settlement. 3. Decades of revenues already lost due to bad pricing policies. Any economist would tell you they've missed decades of opportunity for increased revenue... One word: ELASTICITY! Pricing every CD between $13.99 and $18.99 is simply not intelligent when so many more people would buy it if it was cheaper. Summary: We're right to question the fair-use of a single user product, but it may still be lucrative to pay our way around fair-use as a corporation, offer music cheaper, and make more money for everyone who has staying power. (Buh-bye CD stores... You didn't really think selling information at physical retail locations would last forever, did you? The shame!)