"the fact is (see what I did there?) only 38% of the people who downloaded “in rainbows” paid anything. and that’s for a rather cultish band that had 13 years of previous big label backing and marketing through capitol records!"
In actuality, according to a Gallup poll, to the vast majority of people (above 80%), sharing makes no difference in their likeliness to buy a work. Those other 62% percent would not have bought anyways if it were not available for free.

there is a HUGE difference between having to rightfully pay for what you consume and choosing to pay for what you consume. “selling” is not the same as “charity”.
In actuality, nobody "has to" pay for any music/movies/&c. because people do indeed choose to pay for what they consume. For example, nobody "has to" watch a certain movie; people choose to see the movie. For people to see the movie in the first place for a certain price is indeed charity, because nobody really needs to see the movie.

1) box office is the smallest revenue source for the film industry (which makes you an idiot)

3) the video game industry took in 32 billion last year selling games. You apparently think the majority of that was made through commercial halo tournaments (which makes you an idiot).
In addition to the fact that the Gallup poll mentioned above has shown that it makes no difference to whether people buy it or not, you have no citations that any of these three points are false, or, even if they are false for the time being, you have not proven that it is in fact, impossible for them to be true in the future.

LOL!

the word “survivability” has nothing to do with the definition of “freeloading”. you are a f*cking idiot. saying i am “anti-dictionary” is just the icing on your failcake. please link me to the definition that mentions “survivability”. i dare you to try.

“the fact is that it is much better to make money off of complimentary works instead.”
————————–

LOL!

a funny thing with your posts is that whenever you say “the fact is…” (which is annoyingly often i’m afraid) what invariably follows is the furthest thing from a fact as you could possibly get. you are confusing “opinions” and “facts” which makes you an idiot.

“There is little money to be made through non-commercial usages”
————————–

LOL!

wow. just. wow. this might be the single dumbest thing you’ve ever posted here, and that is quite a feat…

"so there is much more money from commercial usages, like screening in movies, or live performances, or things like that."
—————————

LOL!

1) box office is the smallest revenue source for the film industry (which makes you an idiot)

2) live performances are expected to eclipse recorded music sales this year for the first time ever and this is largely attributed to the increase in online piracy. (hardly what I’d call “much more money” especially considering it hasn’t even happened yet…which makes you an idiot)

3) the video game industry took in 32 billion last year selling games. You apparently think the majority of that was made through commercial halo tournaments (which makes you an idiot).

"The radiohead/NIN experiments have taught us the opposite of what you have stated. You do not have to be so anti-reality."
—————————-

LOL!

you are the last person that should be calling anyone “anti-reality”. Someone high out of their mind on LSD has a better grip on reality than you do. the fact is (see what I did there?) only 38% of the people who downloaded “in rainbows” paid anything. and that’s for a rather cultish band that had 13 years of previous big label backing and marketing through capitol records!

“Even if donations are required, the fact is that this charity is no different from buying…To buy it is essentially to give charity…If you want to live off of selling "art," then you are living off of charity no matter what.”
—————————-

LOL!

there is a HUGE difference between having to rightfully pay for what you consume and choosing to pay for what you consume. “selling” is not the same as “charity”.

why don't you take your own advice and crack open a dictionary?

“Even if donations are required, the fact is that this charity is no different from buying…To buy it is essentially to give charity…If you want to live off of selling "art," then you are living off of charity no matter what.”
—————————-

that is an irrelevant fact in regard to the definition of 'freeloading" which you still don't seem to understand.

and pirates "trying to pay" doesn't put food on anyone's table or a roof over anyone's head.

furthermore if the radiohead/NIN experiments taught us anything, it's that the VAST MAJORITY of pirates have no interest in paying even a single CENT directly to the artist in exchange for their hard work.

and personally, i don't like being forced into a position dependant on charity, especially given how cheap the majority of your freeloaders have proven yourselves to be.

what i don't understand is how you can't accept that some artists actually want to make a living doing what they love…

Also, paying does indeed put food on the table, or a roof on somebody's head. Copyright does not even make people pay, who would not have paid int he first place. There is no evidence whatsoever that people pay due to copyright. Even if copyright does make people pay (which, of course, is false), the fact is that it is much better to make money off of complimentary works instead. There is little money to be made through non-commercial usages, so there is much more money from commercial usages, like screening in movies, or live performances, or things like that.

The radiohead/NIN experiments have taught us the opposite of what you have stated. You do not have to be so anti-reality.

Even if donations are required, the fact is that this charity is no different from buying. If people did not want to support the creators of a piece of work, then they choose not to buy it. To buy it is essentially to give charity. If you want to live off of selling "art," then you are living off of charity no matter what.

Thus we have the multitude of whats known as COMMONALITY.
we are a community that as it walks the streets of the net we are friendly and say hi as we pass. It is no less different than saying hi as you pass your neighbors and no less different then smiling and saying have a wonderful day.

and under current Canadian law i am breaking no laws, there is a levy that is in place and i would argue that the current laws have no benefit to society and that the copyright laws were originally formed to give the artist SOME compensation NOT keep me from enjoying the art at there set of costs.

It is narrow minded and short sited to see the economic loss hollywood has incurred upon us all and like the NHL hockey players , they should get a lot less for there doings and as one person said at slash dot , it is not art anymore it is nothing more then a business. That is why artistic movies and music rarely see the light and if they do its rare.

Thus we have the multitude of whats known as COMMONALITY.
we are a community that as it walks the streets of the net we are friendly and say hi as we pass. It is no less different than saying hi as you pass your neighbors and no less different then smiling and saying have a wonderful day.

and under current Canadian law i am breaking no laws, there is a levy that is in place and i would argue that the current laws have no benefit to society and that the copyright laws were originally formed to give the artist SOME compensation NOT keep me from enjoying the art at there set of costs.

It is narrow minded and short sited to see the economic loss hollywood has incurred upon us all and like the NHL hockey players , they should get a lot less for there doings and as one person said at slash dot , it is not art anymore it is nothing more then a business. That is why artistic movies and music rarely see the light and if they do its rare.

Also, there is a difference, but it is not in whether it is right or wrong.