Freecycle: 54 MP3 CDs

promoters don't develop acts in the same way record companies do, new bands and artists still need advances and A&R development to be able to get the most out of what they do, often these bands wouldn't be able to make music and develop a fan base without that support.

That's not really true. It was the owner of CBGB who nurtured Television, The Ramones, Blondie, etc. It was the owners of the Rum Runner who nurtured the Duran Duran. Promoters are far more involved with nurturing talent than record companies. Record Companies go with safe bets, established artists or ones who have already built a fan base without the help of the record company. Or through the X factor - surely a blatant advert for Syco records and an obvious example of how they play with people's dreams, chew them up and spit them out. (Even if they win) Unless the artist has a really good lawyer the record company usually royally screws them.

You wouldn't argue that a painter should allow people to steal his paintings in order that the theives friends might see the painting and encourage them to buy one...

No, because that's a completely bloody stupid comparison. If you steal a painting you're removing the original. When you copy a song you're in no way depriving the artist of the original work. Just a couple of pence. It's not going into the studio and taking the master tapes is it? A more accurate comparison is by copying the work you are taking a photo, making a scan or a photocopy. Which harms the artist not one jot.

Also, I just noticed your comment about Radio, actually you do pay for radio either directly with your license fee for the BBC or indirectly by listening to adverts, same with Spotify, YouTube etc etc. And by using those services the artist and songwriters get paid royalties because those mediums need a license to play music, that license fee is then split between the artists and they are rewarded for their work, because those business models rely on artists to run their companies. That is a fair system, sharing music where the creator doesn't get rewarded, isn't.

The recording industry is, for most artists, a system where the creator doesn't get rewarded.
http://www.negativland.com/albini.html

Do you really think artists make money from things like Spotify?
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/

Radio doesn't pay struggling artists either. When I was a DJ there was nobody counting all the songs we were playing. A bloke from the royalty people used to come in once a month and take a sample of what was on the playlists for that one day. Which was all the mainstream stuff usually, and pretty much assumed that was all that was played. I never played what was on the playlists, so I'm happy to say I did get a favourite band of mine at the time some royalties simply because I played their entire album on the day of release and that was the day the PRS-MCPS guy came in.

That album release had been fraught with difficulty because EastWest dropped them after recording it but before release. They had to pay EastWest to get the rights back. Then they released it on China along with a couple of singles. Then EastWest bought China and dropped them again.

Now I think you should support artists. If you like something you should buy it if you are able to. Go and see them play. Buy their T shirts if you really want. But I also think that sharing music is a good thing. It's exposure, and more than that, it's free exposure. I learned everything I know about writing music (which may not be a lot) by spending the last 30 years listening to music other people introduced me to. I'd say a good half of everything I own is not stuff I heard on the radio but stuff I heard from a mate or downloaded. Music should not be something only the wealthy can have access to.

If I was ever to attempt to sell my music for actual money I would be doing it independently, as detailed here
http://www.musicianwages.com/the-working-musician/the-self-released-album-101-the-basics/