I haven't read the entire comments thread, so I apologise if anyone has covered this angle (which I'm sure they have).

I'm not only in an up-and-coming band, so to speak, but have been doing my solo stuff for many years now. I started using the internet to distribute/promote my music in 2001, and never expected to make any money nor anyone to listen. Nearly seven years later my monetary expectations have been totally met, but I've received emails from all over the world from people who've listened to my stuff, which would never have happened without the net.

Now, from a monetary perspective, the net is also a godsend. One of the guys in the band I'm in recently spent thousands getting CDs pressed, and after that experience, as a band we completely see the folly of it. Sure, putting money in the right place can work wonders, but the internet is the future, and more specifically, the model Radiohead offered. EVERY single anticipated album in the past few years, and in the future has/will leak before it comes on CD. Radiohead leaked it themselves, got some money, and are still selling CDs (I work in a record store, and it was our top selling CD last week). If you want it for free, you can get ANY album you want almost - it's something modern musicians have to work around, and Radiohead did it brilliantly.

As for our band, we plan something similar, if only to avoid the ridiculous costs involved in pressing CDs (if doing it ourselves) or 'other' costs (if going through a third party). The money is in live performances, for a band of our type. For someone poppier, advertising/merch, for sure.

It's all very well arguing against non-DRM, but it's like arguing the Titanic is unsinkable two hours after it's already hit the iceberg. Why bother with DRM when CDs don't have it?

I've probably gone over every argument already presented, but hoped I brought something to the argument with an indie-musician's perspective...

Cheers