NOTE: Please be aware that this semi-rant has a liberal dose of devil's advocacy sprinkled throughout.
The problem with saying that the music companies treat consumers as cash cows, "milking and bleeding our wages from us" is that they would go out of business if they didn't charge so much. They've got a lot of costs to recoup from supporting a band and producing an album.
Granted, a studio probably doesn't have to spend too much money on marketing for a band with a (declining) reputation like Metallica, but take newer, younger bands as an example. Do you have any idea how much money a recording company has to throw at an "average band with above average looks" (i.e. most "new talent" out there these days) in order to make them marketable? The recording companies have to charge a lot of money for the CDs because they need to recoup those costs. (Unfortunately, the system is so bloated that the number of people involved in producing an album is ridiculously high. In this sense, yes, we are being milked, but everyone needs to make a living, right?
)
Please understand that I am not trying to defend the system. The system came into existence (well before the advent of online file sharing) by capitalizing on not-too-discriminating teenagers with money to burn. Studios were justified in spending tons of money to make bands look hip and cool because kids were/are more than willing to buy into the image.
I guess what I'm trying to say is you can't put too much blame on the music companies. If a market exists, a business will always appear to take advantage of it.
