(part 2)
But it seems that the pro-piracy folks apparently would have us believe that all the unauthorized music downloads ONLY happens to signed artists and/or major label artists. Right? Otherwise the 'argument' that piracy doesn't affect the artist goes out the window.

I am also a musician. My dream would be to be able to continue to make and share my music, and hope that folks would like it. I was actually writing a song before I found this article to distract me. Creating music (or any art) is often all-consuming. If I could generate enough money to live on from my music, I would- If only to be in the position to focus fully on creating and not have to contend with a day job interfering with my 'flow'. If I make fortunes, awesome. If I still have to have a side job, well, that's fine. It WOULD make it harder to tour, but I'm pretty crafty. I'm sure I could work it.
As it sits now, when we finish recording ourselves (for the record, I have around $5grand dumped into recording gear, so I guess technically that's an expense. Though I can't BEGIN to calculate dollar numbers for guitars amps etc...), we will 'self-release' ourselves. If it's appealing enough, maybe we can sell enough to gas up the van to go up and down I-5 and play some shows. And maybe it'll grow bigger than THAT, which would be MORE gas which would allow us to entertain the notion of going east/west as well.
Now, if you find our music, like it and download it for free- how is that NOT effecting me or NOT stealing from me? If I choose to charge for it and don't like the price, don't buy it. Or buy it when you can afford it. But if you want to get it 'on lay-away' by taking it for for free now, then maybe buying something later-Well, you should talk to me about that to see if we can come to some terms on that. If we don't, then it IS stealing. Regardless of whether you like/dislike the price, like/dislike where you THINK the money is going or the fact that there's no 'physical' element to it, it's still theft.

If I'm desperate enough to sign a horrible recording contract, unauthorized downloads STILL effect me directly, in that it would take longer for the 'album' to recoup costs (because less people are 'buying' it), which means it takes longer for my band to start getting a cut of the album sales.

I have a lot of respect for NIN, Radiohead and the Dead, but it is totally up to them to set their price. As it is for any artist. If you don't like the price, don't listen. Don't go to the show.
It is irrelevant how much money you make or how big your apartment is. People mis-spend their money all the time. If you're a responsible individual and DON'T 'mis-spend' it on my (or ANYONES) album, you do not get rewarded for said responsiblity by declaring yourself entitled to steal.
If I'm making and selling cookies and you can't afford them, then you don't get any cookies. You are not ENTITLED to have to cookies. Cookies are a luxury. If you can't afford to buy them, make your own (if you can bake). And, if you like, you can give as many away for free as you'd like

WOW!
Where to begin??

Well, Ms Linnet, things have NOT changed that much- Touring is a wash (IF you're lucky)

VERY FEW BANDS 'PROFIT' FROM TOURING. And they're not the bands you'd think. I.e. anyone who's made the 'largest concert gross' list, etc.
At the risk of sidetracking myself, is download piracy DIFFERENT from the guys who make bootleg T-Shirts and sell them outside the gig?
If you're lucky (and DON'T have Tshirt bootleggers out front) your merch money MIGHT help you offset tour costs. And yes, sometimes even a profit. But rarely is that profit a 'fortune' enough to eschew your record sales.
I have worked in the concert industry for 18 years- Touring is there to promote the album. Some bands (REALLY SMART bands, anyway) CAN make money on the road, most do NOT. To cite touring or even merchandise revenue as an artists PRIMARY (or even a major chunk of the pie) is just plain wrong.

It would appear that Mr. Barnes has never read a recording contract. If he HAS, then he should find a lawyer or artist manager to read it TO him.
On the whole, the label fronts some money (or picks up the tab) for recording/production. After the expenses are recouped, the artist and label split the proceeds. Mr.Barnes' article paints us the image that EVERY album a record label releases is a 'work made for hire' and the artist in not entitled to ANY benefit after release if said album.
This, also, is NOT true.

Now, I know record labels (and their contracts) can be deceitful. I also know that LOTS and lots and lots of bands SIGN those contracts. Sometimes with, sometimes withOUT advisement. But I don't see that as very pertinent to piracy or unauthorized duplication. To make an analogy; You don't get to not pay for a house simply because you THINK the developer isn't paying the contractor.....
Further, I believe that ; yes, the recording industry is a lumbering beast that hasn't proven very 'agile' throughout the past couple decades and, as a business model, will not survive the next 10 years in the form it is now.
Regardless, if an artist enters an agreement with a label to offer ones music for a given price (whether it's zero dollars, $1.5 or $12-$15)- then THAT is your option, Pay it or live without it.