I like Metallica, I hate Bush, and St. Anger is a decent album... am I in the minority here?
Truthfully, I'm split on the whole filesharing thing. I don't try to justify it; I do it because I HAVE NO MONEY. (going into college.) I also think artists should be paid for their work, and if you don't like/agree with a position like Metallica's, then you should just deal with it. They could be rich jerks (and truthfully, I wouldn't doubt it), but bitching about them not being happy when you rip them off is just dumb. It's not like what they're saying is truthfully affecting you anyway, especially if you don't like them to begin with.
Now that I have been introduced to the wonders of filesharing however, I've heard of many more artists than I ever would have living in the midwestern US. Boards of Canada, The Dandy Warhols, Theatre of Tragedy, Vast, Test Dept. etc... loads of stuff, many different genres. I'm a very open-minded listener, but never would have bought any work by these artists before, as I had never heard them.
So, in summation -- filesharing (at least, music) is not morally wrong in the aspect that it makes a good evaluationary tool, whether you know it or not. When used to outright steal, the RIAA actually has a point... evil though they may be. To me, it is the evolution of radio, allowing for more choice. There will never be a clear stance on the issue, but basically it boils down to your own personal morality and values...
Then again, I could just be full of hot air; you decide.