In my mind, it's an extension of the community cooperation that exists in open-source software. Sure, there are going to be leeches who never do anything other than take, but many people are looking to help out other folks.

Not all of us can or even want to buy a CD based on nothing more than a single, or even on a print review. But if all your friends feel the same way, how are you supposed to ever hear the rest or any of it? It might be the best thing you've ever heard, but if you never have the chance to hear it, then you'll never know.

If the RIAA combined their argument against unfettered distribution with some idea that people could really listen to the music before they buy it, they might be taken more seriously. But the closest they've come is presented as a way to restrict what we've already got, not a way to create what we don't have. Time-restricted demos make sense. Suing 12-year-olds does not. (It also seems at this point that they're targeting minors in hopes that their parents will capitulate instead of going after folks who might want to stand up for what they believe their rights to be, but that's another point altogether.)

I don't really disagree with what you say, but I think there are several other sides to it.