BBC News Online speaks to two music industry observers - a computer consultant who believes sharing music can be a good thing and the head of the IFPI, who believes music should be paid for.
Bill Thompson, computer consultant and technology writer
It is odd that the music industry claims that the growth in CD sales in the UK last year is because the artists are so good, while the drop in sales in the US is because of "piracy" and "theft" of their copyright material.
Some might think that it is more likely to be because the American public just do not like the stuff that is on sale, but of course this would not support the anti-copying agenda of senior industry executives.
Instead of acknowledging that some degree of sharing is a good thing, because it encourages people to listen to new bands before they go out and buy a CD, they want to stop all copying.
They do not even care that copyright laws are supposed to impose a balance between the rights holders - usually the companies rather than the musicians themselves, these days - and the public.
In any case, once something is stored as a pattern of bits in the digital age it is very hard to stop it being copied.
There are copy protection systems out there, but they can all be broken with remarkable ease by a dedicated hacker.
Recognising this, the music industry supports laws like the much-reviled US Digital Millennium Copyright Act which makes it a crime to break even the inadequate copy protection used on DVDs.
And now Senator Fritz Hollings is pushing the Consumer Broadband and Digital Television Promotion Act.
It is a very bad bill which would make criminals of everyone who wanted to burn a spare copy of a CD for their car or to share with a friend and force manufacturers to limit the capabilities of their technology.
The music industry should not be allowed to blame the computer industry for producing tools which spoil their cosy little cartel and let anyone copy music.
Allen Dixon, General Counsel, IFPI
We are convinced that more music is being enjoyed by more people, in more varied ways, than ever before.
The problem is that so much music it isn't being paid for.
People are not copying because they don't like the music - they're copying because they do. But there are lots of easy, and legitimate, ways to get to know music without copying it - the radio, MTV, CDs your friends have bought.
The music business needs to continually invest in new artists to survive. It does this by ensuring that successful bands and artists being paid for their recordings.
Record companies have to use technology to protect their music, whether it is through closing down plants involved in counterfeiting, fighting against internet piracy or through copy protection technology.
Meanwhile, new laws are coming into force that will prevent widespread dissemination of copying devices.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act is just the US version of laws being implemented everywhere in the world via the UN WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Treaties.
Do we sue individual users in their homes for making one or two copies? Of course not.
Our internet piracy strategy is targeted at those who are causing the most damage to the business, and where the infringement of record producers' and artists' rights is most serious - namely at those who are distributing music on a mass scale.
The music industry is embracing technology, not opposing it.
But there is a world of difference between creating a technology that can distribute music for free and developing an on-line music business where all the creators and copyright holders get paid.
Technological innovators expect payment for what they have created - why should it be any different for artists and record companies?