I found the BBC article on this far more balanced and helpful (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-15528101), some of Pete's comments are below
Quote: "The word 'sharing' surely means giving away something you have earned, or made, or paid for?" he said.
Quote: "Is there really any good reason why, just because iTunes exists in the wild west internet land of Facebook and Twitter, it can't provide some aspect of these services to the artists whose work it bleeds like a digital vampire, like a digital Northern Rock, for its enormous commission?" he asked.
Quote: The guitarist also said that people who downloaded his music without paying for it "may as well come and steal my son's bike while they're at it".
Quote: If someone "pretends that something I have created should be available to them free... I wonder what has gone wrong with human morality and social justice", he said.
Quote: But he also told listeners: "It's tricky to argue for the innate value of copyright from a position of good fortune, as I do. I've done all right."
Quote: And he added: "A creative person would prefer their music to be stolen and enjoyed than ignored. This is the dilemma for every creative soul: he or she would prefer to starve and be heard than to eat well and be ignored."
He seems to realise that he's done okay from his music, and that he realises that people will question his stand considering he's done okay from it - but he does make a point. If you create something, then you should have the right to sell that if you want to (or offer it free, if you want to). "File sharing" costs artists money, with most people who do it, probably not actually paying for their original copy of the music, rather getting it from someone else and then sharing it on. And Apple/iTunes takes a large (30%) cut of the sales, without doing anything to help up-coming artists. He pointed out that John Peel did lots to introduce new artists to listeners.