Hmm... interesting debate. Spoilt by people wading in with the usual internet forum
"i can't see you so I'll needlessly talk shit, shooting down your comments in a purile and pathetic way, just because its something I'd love to do in real life, just here I can't see any way where I'll wind up getting hit for it"
At the end of the day, for the vast, vast majority of musicians out there, people downloading their tracks on the internet can only be a good thing, as far as I can see, as if by letting people listen to your music for free (as a taster, or an introduction to their music) then more people will hear about it, thus actually driving demand for their music.
In the past, I've listened to albums that have been downloaded illegally. usually, if its good, I'll go buy the album. Definitely, if I like the music, I'll play it to friends, play it while DJing at house parties or in clubs, and generally get the music heard. A lot of the time this will be music written by bands I've perhaps heard of, but have never bought any albums. Hopefully, by my distribution of this music socially, more people will have heard of a certain band, and maybe a few record sales will be made that never would have been.
You only have to look at Arctic Monkeys over here in England to see just how successful allowing your music to be freely downloaded can be. They released about 16 tracks for free on their website, loads of people downloaded them, because they weer good. They played tem to their friends. Then, the band went on tour. Played to capacity venues everywhere they went. On their first ever national tour. Then, they released a single. It went to number 1. Straight away. They sold out Brixton Academy before they even released the single, which probably made them more money than the number 1. Now they have a new album out, I'm sure its available on the internet for free. BUT I bet it still goes to number one.
The only bands that really have cause for complaint are the people at the top of the industry. Now, I could get all high and mighty and say that they could probably afford to lose a few thousand album sales, as they've already made several times more money than the average person will make in their whole life. BUT, that wouldn't be fair. However, I'm not aware of any major release actually failing to sell copies due to it being available on the internet. A major point in case would be Coldplay's recent offering. They were very annoyed that it was leaked on the internet (despite them offering a free stream from their website), and yet the album still reached number one (although why, after hearing it for free, so many people still decided to waste their money on such a limp album baffles me). Where's the beef?
At the end of the day, the real driving force behind the complaints of copyright theft are the major labels. They percieve that if X million people download an album, if there were no downloads all those people would actually have gone out and bought the album. I contend that that is utter bollocks, and in practice the majority of downloaded music is material that the "pirate" had perhaps never listened to before, and was curious about. Certainly for me, downloading music illegally has led to me purchasing more, not less, albums.
Yeah, there's probably loads of people out there that erfuse to buy any albums, but then if you made it iollegal, rthen they would have no interest in going to see the band live, or buying the T-shirt and novelty mousemat. Or whatever.
Sorry about the long rant, I just felt I had to get out the whole argument from myself, so I could safely ignore this topic forever more.