The attempts here at moral equivalency are ridiculous. Stealing, in the very narrow definition that most have provided in this thread, is currently the most profound way to affect market change. Boycotting sends no message whatsoever, downloading from iTunes says that consumers want shit quality recordings, and buying CDs perpetuates packaging and distribution costs (and mark-ups). The music industry should be paying more attention to leaked material and torrenting services (beyond finding ways to stop them... as we've seen the hydra of torrenting will continually reappear, even if one of its heads is chopped off). As of now, there is no service providing legitimate and approved content that can compete with the infinite selection, very high quality recordings, and the ease of accessibility found on most p2p torrent sites. This is what the "stealing" community (and probably others) want... all things being equal, if there was a monthly fee site that offered the same platform as something like OiNK, there would be a huge demand for subscriptions. A legal service like that could circumvent leak issues and provide content in a more user-friendly (and affordable) way. Personally, I buy off iTunes now (begrudgingly), because I have no tolerance for anymore physical CDs (due to storage and all the extraneous packaging that they come with), and I don't want to have to worry (albeit limited, being Canadian) about using illicit torrent sites. I'm swallowing low quality and low selection, instead of being "criminal".
Artists will always get paid, because some group in society will be (unfortunately) forced to subsidize illicit activity, whether it be through ISP surcharges, CD-R royalties, or CD price mark-ups. I don't know why there is such a pre-occupation and worry for certain musicians and their livelihood, because the industry will inevitably have to shrink. Artists like The National were not able to be dedicated musicians until their last album... they all had other jobs, and it seems like they were able to provide for themselves. Through time, proactivity, eventual label support, and recommendations from internet sites like Pitchforkmedia (and I would even say p2p sharing), The National were able to become self-sufficient.
If the music industry were to have an effective business model that ensured payment for all artists, there would be an immediate shrinkage in the number of artists who could actually make a living completely off of music. It's a bottleneck and a double-edged sword for artists and labels... either there will be fewer that can make a living, or there will be more artists with less opportunity to accumulate capital.
On a sidenote, I find it interesting that people in this thread continue to bash the relatively small (in a global sense) illegal downloading/uploading community, when countries like China have an immense CD piracy market. An emerging 250 million people-strong middle class with disposable income and easy access to cheap ripped off CDs and merchandise is a lot scarier than a few million downloaders. To give you an indication, while visiting Beijing a few times in the last couple of years, the most predominant English words used there were "CD" and "DVD" (illegal variety, of course).
Regardless, the moral high horse is not the answer to any of the industry's problems. In fact, it just perpetuates them. Offering a competent legal service is the only way artists will recover expenses... not through random acts of litigation or broad-based service charges.