Makes a lot of sense - but problem is they say: ok so p2p helps music sales, well than, we want to control it ... that's plain stupid. An analogy: most of the books I bought I read before (or parts of it) in the institute library - moreover, some of them were available only as photocopies (well, there was an original for each, but usually a teacher or a phd student set on it for months). p2p is essentially the same thing - a huge library, and yes, some people would not buy the music they download as some people go to library because they don't have the money - but they won't buy CDs even if p2p would be stomped out of existence anyway...
I wonder when would they realize this - the new 'terrible' generation - they are criminalizing something that is just natural. To continue the analogy: I read something in photocopy: the words are exactly the same (so a photocopy is not even a lossy format in the sense that mp3 is) - yet those texts I like I want to have as books - why? I don't know, there is no rationale for this, it is simple that I like to hold a book in my hand, I like their smell (I like the smell of CDs as well), their touch. And both are copyrighted material - and as far as value goes, I won't consider Britney as an Intellectual Property. Moreover, this whole 'war' against p2p has another connotation - as laws begin to be more strict in case of music and digital content, it suggests that there is more value here than in literature or whatever - the more locks you see on a chest, to more valuable you think its content is. Bullcake.
