In that there is no way to argue that the artist lost sales due to the copies, thus, no harm made.
"Lost sales" is not a necessary component of copyright infringement, if I recall.
It is a component when calculating any damages, though.
Is it? How do they figure? Or do they just use whatever number RIAA gives them?
The difference is, that the buyer would actually own the original, with all the associated rights. Maybe see to it that a few singles get lots of radio play, and then resell the complete original at auction - sounds fair to me.
The copyright does not follow the original.
If true, I would argue that limiting reproduction rights significantly diminishes the principle of ownership.