Or are you saying something else. You aren't exactly being clear.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I think Soup, Travmil and others make a good counterpoint - not around the intellectual property laws that make artistic expression commercially possible in the first place, but that the music industry's prices are out of sync with what the market will bear for digital downloads.
Digital delivery should be substantially less expensive than buying a CD or other physical form of the music. There is nothing to print or press, distribution/ warehouse/ retail costs are minimal (no rent to pay), and there aren't any minimum wage store clerks running the cash register. So digital music should cost a fraction of physical music. The cost should cover the artists' royalties, bandwidth, marketing, and a reasonable profit. That's it.
- - - - - - - - - -
PS, One of the ugly things going on over the past decade is that the recording labels have been increasing their "take" of the artists' royalties as if the creativity did not come from the artist but came from the label. To the extend the recording labels are paying themselves a royalty -- that's a problem They can have a reasonable profit on the risk they take. And they take risks when they attempt to identify which artists will be profitable in the future. But they don't take as much risk as the artists themselves -- and diversify that risk with a portfolio of artist contracts -- and that should be reflected as well.