Record industry, music downloads and sharing, intellectual property, it doesnt make sense.?

Why does a recording company get to sue over illegal music sharing, because they dont own the intellectual property. Doesnt the artist own the rights to their music not the recording company, and if so wouldnt they be the only party elligible to file a law suit?

no, the artist actually produces a produce as part of a contract for the record company

look at companies that invent things, the guy who "invented" the xbox, or ipod gets little to no rights to it. They created this work for a company, and that company owns the rights.

If you remember years back a few artists have sued their record companies to gain access to their old songs for a best of album they were trying to make. If an artist changes labels, they leave behind their work unless they have a more favorable contract.

No actually the artist already got paid most of his money and the record company owns the reproduction rights to the music.

No, the artist's contract vests the rights in the music to the recording company. The record company pays for the production, duplication, distribution and marketing of the music. The artist's contract specifies royalties the recording company will pay on the music.

The rights for mechanical reproduction (that is, recording and copying) are given to the recording company - and they sue illegal distributors who violate their exclusive right to distribution.

It depends on who owns the reproduction rights. Also the artist may have signed over the copyright. Also the music publishing company has the right to the song often. and the record label may have distribution rights. it all depends on who owns the masters and most atists arent big enuf to negotiate that as part of their contract.