I can't really be 4rsed to argue....but 
music and films only cost as much to make in the production sense because people are greedy...why is Tom cruise paid what he is for example? Because the film company believe they will get £x turnaround in sales revenue...pay less, bringing down production is one way, the other is digital media. It costs very little to supply digital versions to Apple and any storage costs are negated as wharehousing isn't needed by the film company or Apple and the same goes for music. Greedy feckers really. And that's why I disagree with digital media costs. Same way that CD against vinyl was BS and the industry answer to justify their argument that CDs weren't cheaper to make was dealt with by raising vinyl prices! They would have more support if they lowered the cost to the consumer instead of being greedy.
As for album prices being better at £10 I remember £3:99
As for legality of making a copy for own use... 
I have that much music on vinyl I have to take out specialist policies that cover up to £100,000. I performed as a DJ and paid into the PRMS via means of this as all clubs pay and DJs pay is reflective. Anyhoo won't say any more on this
The same could be said about F1 drivers, premier league football players, or even top level bankers. In competitive markets, no one will pay the top level less as they'll simply go to the competitor.
Actually, Apple will take 30% of the sale straight off. Add in everyone elses time to get that song to a point of sale - writer, performer, studio, mastering, marketing etc - and thats not a lot of profit per sale.
The more people who distribute the same track for free, the less that buy it, meaning the more they have to sell to maintain the same level of profit, or maintain the price point. If they reduce the costs, they will make less money. The argument of them reducing prices to stop piracy will never work either, not unless they gave the tracks away.
