APK, you just released "Land" as a free download. I'm saying this in the nicest way possible: From your comments here, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
Personally, I enjoy the simplicity of uploading my music to my site and having it readily available to everyone. Generalizing that an artist giving away his/her music means that they didn't put a lot of time and work into it is silly.
Judging from the numbers of my only release that isn't available for free, I could have enough money to buy all those music-making tools I've been drooling over. But it's more important to me that people have unlimited access to my work. Sure, there's going to be a lot of people who may download a release and never even listen to it. But there's also going to be a lot of people who will enjoy my work, but wouldn't have purchased it because they didn't want to take a chance on an unknown artist.
In the past, a label decided who was heard and who wasn't. It wasn't really a problem because we didn't know what we were missing. Now, thanks to the Internet, everyone has the ability to be heard. We all have a choice of who we want to hear, but as you mentioned the drawback is a huge dilution of music. Nothing is perfect and you have to take the good with the bad. I'd take dilution over never having the chance to hear a particular artist.
In my opinion, there's no right or wrong way to distribute music... only different thoughts on what's right or wrong. I have no problem with an artist charging money for their hard work. But it boggles my mind if you feel that my choice to release my music freely is ruining the genre.