The argument that royalties aren't important to artists is flawed for the following reason: royalties are of paramount importance to labels (including, of course, indie labels) and in the current system, without labels there is no music. Yes, there are some bands who self-release, but I think most of us listen to bands that are on labels.

The reason this debate continues to rage is that there are really good arguments on both sides. I go back and forth between them, honestly. Having seen some of this going on first-hand, I do firmly believe that downloading is hurting the artists I care about (indie rock bands). If labels sell fewer albums, they can't afford to sign as many bands, or put as many resources behind existing bands.

It's also not a zero-sum game: the amount the artist has to recoup stays the same, so if he sells fewer records, that means a bigger cut is coming out of his touring revenues. This exposes the fallacy of the "artists make money touring, not selling albums" argument, even if in some literal sense that is the case.

In the end, if people want to download, in my opinion they at least owe it to the artists to read up on how the process works (I suggest Krasilovsky's "Thus Business of Music" or Donald Passman's book, the name of which escapes me at the moment). The anger should rightly be directed at record labels, which I agree are generally pretty scummy and useless, but because of the reality of the current situation (i.e., no artists without labels), downloading does hurt artists as well. I see a lot of rationalizations of downloading that seem logical but really don't match up with the somewhat illogical reality of how (and how much) artists get paid.

I wonder if a reason for this, if we're talking about bands where the guys are 21, 22 years old, is because they were themselves into P2P as teenagers and may be more tolerant of it?

I would think most bands are actually against it, but after seeing the grief Metallica took, they put on a good front for the public.

I think it helps the lesser known bands! How else are you going to get noticed these days? The radio? HA! MTV? double HA! Even college radio completely sucks now compared to the '80s.

When Napster was around, I'd get the latest issue of Flipside or Maximumrockandroll, go through the reviews. If a band sounded like something I'd like, I'd go to Napster & download a couple songs. Then if I liked them, run to the store and buy it.

Even Lars has expressed deep regret for fucking up Napster.

Which, now that artists have embraced the internet and mp3's, we're able to go to their website and usually get a song or two for free. Coupled with sites like the Pandora one listed in another thread, finding new artists is a cinch.

Exactly what I do as well. If I really like a band I will buy their stuff. If not then it's to the recycle bin. Sorry folks. I don't have thousands of dollars lying around to buy CD's of artists I've never heard before to find out how they sound. You sure as hell can't depend on MTV or the radio to find out by either.

I can dig it, Mopower!

Mopower to ya, by the way!

Satellite radio.
I've heard more new music, and more older good music, in four months of listening to XM radio then I have in the past five years of listening to regular shitty free radio.

I would think that could be part of it. They are certainly familier and comfortable with the technology.
And that's the key word, "technology". P2P file sharing is another form of technology, that despite how the RIAA or record lables might feel about it, is here, and here to stay. The cat is out of the bag and can't be put back in.

I think the RIAA would like us all to go back to the 60's and 70's when buying a vinyl record was the only game in town.
Then came the cassette recorder which meant one guy could buy the album and all his friends could tape copies.
Next comes the CD. So the RIAA and the record companies are all fine with everyone having to spend tons of money to re-buy their collection on this new 'digital' format cause it sounds so much better.
Unfortunately for them, this is the same digital format that would later come back to bite them in the ass when it's suddenly discovered that people could make digital copies of CD's and post them on this new fangled internet thing to be traded back and forth.
Oops.

Eh, here are my thoughts on this issue:

For me, I still buy the CDs that I always would have in the past. The list is very short though, I just don't buy many CDs and never have for the most part. However, with downloading, I have discovered a ton of new bands that I never would have heard without downloading, simply because most of it isn't on the radio.

In doing so, I have become a huge fan of a lot of new artists and bands. As a result of this I have spread the word about these new people, and as a result of that perhaps other people who never would have known about them otherwise went out and purchased their music as well. I know for a fact that I've played a part in getting people to buy CDs of guys like Damien Rice, The Shins, and even Katie Melua and KT Tunstall.

Also, lets not forget that since the iPod craze started, illegal downloads have actually went down. Most of the complaints in the past had to do with record companies releasing a CD with only one or two good songs on it with the rest being crap filler. Now that people can go and pay 99 cents to make their own CD, more people are willing to pay.

Good points BL, I agree.