But there are indications that the track was leaked by the band’s management. If so, the outrage the band expressed through its Web site might have been part of the plan.

According to the Wall Street Journal, it appears the track might have been intentionally leaked to promote the song and the upcoming album. What’s more, the posting on the band’s Web site decrying the leak could have been part of the same promotion.

The track was leaked several weeks ago and followed by a posting on the band’s Web site stating, “We hate it when this shit happens, because we want our FANS to have any new songs first.”

The band’s label, Atlantic Records, also issued the same statement July 22.

Along with the statement on the band’s site, the post also contained a link to download the song. Plus, the band also released a video for the song.

But all of this probably would have been forgotten if the online community hadn’t suspected something was up. A user on file-sharing blog TorrentFreak who goes by the screen name “enigmax” but has since been identified as blog co-editor Andy Maxwell, cast doubts on the band’s stance against the download.

Evidently, Maxwell’s posting caused TorrentFreak’s editor, who goes by the name of Ernesto Van Der Sar, to look into the Buckcherry post.

After contacting acquaintances at BitTorrent Web sites, Van Der Sar learned the IP address of the computer that originally uploaded the track to the P2P torrent community. Then Maxwell e-mailed the band’s manager, Josh Klemme of 10th Street Entertainment, and told him what Van Der Sar had discovered.

Maxwell told the Journal that Klemme responded to the e-mail requesting that any discussion of the matter take place on the phone. But Maxwell already had what he wanted – Klemme’s IP address, which turned out to be the same as the one used to upload the track in the first place. Can you say, “busted?”

So here you have a band that might have promoted a track by pretending to leak it, then expressing outrage over the leak.

But in an industry that’s fueled on spin, where legendary record men of years past executed incredible promotions designed to sell music, a band leaking a track and ranting against the leak seems more like staying true to the industry’s passion for outrageous marketing techniques.

Sure, the torrent gods of the Net may have a problem with it. After all, ranting against leaks when the ranters are the leakers probably doesn’t earn someone a slot on a P2P proponent’s Christmas card list. In fact, while P2P proponents and torrent advocates have been demanding unfettered sharing on the Net, those same people seemed to have been caught off guard by Buckcherry’s alleged actions. As if they never expected a band or manager might try something a little outlandish in order to promote an album. Welcome to the music biz, folks.

On the other hand, in a world where radio airplay doesn’t necessarily result in sales, where MTV doesn’t necessarily play music videos and CDs aren’t necessarily sold at “music stores,” a band or artist needs to employ just about every means available to break through the static. And it looks as if that’s just what Buckcherry did.

There’s an old saying about how any press is good press as long as they spell the name right. Buckcherry got more press with the leaked track than it probably would have if the track hadn’t leaked – or if the band hadn’t come out so strongly against it.

And the Wall Street Journal did spell the band’s name correctly.