Digital Music News has an interesting report on a new survey of illicit file sharers that found "file-sharers spent an average of $9.63 (5.52 pounds) per month on legal music, while their non-swapping counterparts spent only $2.21 (1.27 pounds) over the same period."

[The study's director says]: "The research clearly shows that music fans who break piracy laws are highly valuable customers. It also points out that they are eager to adopt legitimate music services in the future." The study also noted that these illegal file-sharers would go legit if label-sanctioned music services offered a "compelling experience" and a more comprehensive artist catalog.

The British Phonographic Industry is skeptical, noting that the use of the average obscures the fact that many of the sharers purchase zero.

Personally, I think the ethical case against file-sharing is thin when material is available through P2P networks that is not available through legitimate channels. But so much is now available legitimately that I am a bit skeptical of the justification offered by the sharers -- it looks like boilerplate rationalization. So how about some detail on just where the holes in the legit catalogues are these days? Because when material is available legitimately, the ethical case against illicit downloading is over-whelming.