Why is the RIAA stopping P2P if it makes them money?

[killswitch1968]

I've been thinking a lot about file sharing and the arguments on either side and there's been a lot of circular logic from both sides frankly. Anyway here goes:

Argument 1: Artists see like 5% of the money you pay for a CD.
True, most of that other money goes to other people. However, those 'other people' are in charge of distribution, advertising, production, and all the other monumental expenses involved in making a CD that the artist DOESN'T have to pay. They require this money to fund more musical endeavors.

Argument 2: Music CDs cost $25 when a blank CD costs $2.
Right, but just the process of producing music is huge. Promotions, studio time, instruments, distribution, there's far more to the CD than the CD itself. Now, I'm not saying CDs are not expensive, they are. There are people making money left and right on these things, but they constitute a drop in the proverbial bucket of struggling artists. But the vast majority of artists and even people working at labels need second jobs.

Argument 3: Downloading music is just like stealing a CD.
BULLSHIT. W're not talking about tangible objects. If I steal a CD from HMV, then I have gained a CD and HMV has lost a CD. Clearly someone is gaining at the loss of another. No one really 'loses' anything with P2P because they are copied. If I owned Porsche I would gladly 'copy' it to my friends.

Argument 4: MP3s increase sales/decrease sales/catalyze the apocalypse.
There's been endless arguing and I am not an expert by any stretch. One interesting question: In either situation, what is the future of music if P2P continues unabated?
I can see one of two outcomes:
1) MP3s increase CD sales. Eventually the RIAA get a clue and life goes on in file sharing bliss.
but...
2) MP3s decrease CD sales. As MP3s and computers become more global, CD buying will cease all together. What happens to artists? Does music simply disappear because it is not profitable? Because the medium has changed? Of course not, people will make music for one reason: THEY LOVE MUSIC. In short, everyone who made music for money would quit, and artists who's only aim is to make music and share it, would thrive. This of course is music utopia and the extermination of the popstar as we know it. It would be beautiful. I'm sure said-artists would be supplemented by donations, tours, and other non-downloadable stuff, but would almost undoubtedly live a humble yet satisfying life.





Back to the "does file sharing reduce CD sales" argument. Here's some circular reasoning I've heard:
1. MP3s encourage me to buy CDs, but CDs are too expensive and so I download rather than pay.
2. MP3s encourage me to buy CDs, but If MP3s cause people to buy more CDs, then why are the RIAA so hell bent on stopping MP3s? Why would the RIAA stop something that is 'supposedly' making them money? Are their experts stupid? I can't for the life of me figure it out. Either they are afraid of change, seeing one dimensionally (ie. 'If people can get free music they won't pay for it'), or they are right.

If you really believe that MP3s help sales, explain to me why you think a normal, everyday TRL-Joe is going to buy a CD rather then download it. MP3s have exposed me to music, encouraging me to buy CD and suppose the artists but I scarcely see why $6/h Fred thinks Eminem needs more money. An example of this is Asia. Asia is wrought with file sharing, pirated CDs, and the like. Who's the last asian star you remember? Cultural differences constitutes some disparity, but Asia makes up some 30% of the Earth's population. There's got to be another factor.
I'm not trying to be argumentative, I simply can't come up with a reason. All stats aside, can anyone give me a hand just using plain ol' logic?

Thanks


tl,dr: I don't understand why the RIAA is attacking something that supposedly increases its sales.
I don't understand why a non-devoted music fan would buy a CD from a megastar.