I think paying money that ends up in the pockets of large record companies who then spend that money to pass laws that break the internet is morally reprehensible. I think buying music in this day and age is immoral. The faster the music industry collapses, the better off we all are. I am sorry if some artists have to pay for this too in some way, but we're all (both audience and artists) better off without the record companies, and step 1 is to stop giving them our money.
If we were talking about Air Companies instead of Record Companies, you wouldn't say that Step 0 is to stop breathing air. You'd agree that in an environment where "stealing air" without a licence has been criminalised in some way, it is nevertheless acceptable to continue breathing even if it's illegal and costing revenues from the Air Companies.
So then the question reduces to: how comparable is music to air?
Obviously that depends on the person, but I'd argue that it's precisely those for whom music is most important, who have a relationship to music similar to one's relationship to air: it's a necessary part of life. Those are precisely the people most likely to still be spending significant sums of money supporting the record companies, and my argument is that those people have a moral duty to stop supporting the record companies.
Much like in the air analogy, though, that doesn't mean that Step 0 is for them to stop breathing or listening to music. I think Step 0, 1, 2, 3 and all the rest, consist of operating as if the record companies did not exist, and wait them out. Once the record companies have gone bust, we can start again with a system that's worth supporting.
Just my opinion, but I think it's very defensible.
I don't see it as a breathe or don't breathe dichotomy. Plenty of independent artists one can support, assuming you find their air quality palatable.