[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I understand the costs of file-sharing quite well. Aside from posting articles that can also be refuted, you’ve basically backed up your opinion based on your own personal feelings regarding the free flow of information. Feelings and opinions that, though may work quite well for you, do not work quite as well for those whose responsibilities include not only themselves, but a mortgage and family as well. The post in which you detailed your view regarding everyone just sort of sharing everything sound like the writing of someone who has very few real responsibilities outside of feeding him or herself.

Going even further than that, I also respect criminals for stealing my wallet because they have families (or addictions) to feed...
In other words, I'm not required to care about other people, whether you call me narcissistic or not. But sure, put people who don't care about others in neat little boxes, like "hippy" and "irresponsible adolescent". I'm sure it helps you feel better.

How is it exactly that you "understand" the cost of piracy, when there are almost no real numbers out there on the effects? Gut feelings? I have yet to see any reliable figures from the **AA (the multibillion figures they spout regularly tend to run all over the map depending on whether you ask them, the IFPI, or yet another sponsored study.), so I'm really curious.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

If you truly believe a large majority of file-sharers live by some ethical code (which, in itself is a fallacy if what is being sharing is copyrighted, despite the relative size of the share circle) or download illegally because they simply cannot stomach the current industry business model, well, I have several bridges for sale that might just be of interest to you. Despite what we may wish or choose to believe, the real world does not function on hugs and kisses and goodwill, consumers of commercially available digital media should reward their favorite authors, musicians and artists by helping them sustain themselves so that they may continue to do so.

I love fallacies. Really. Which is why it pains me to see you type "illegal". downloading copyrighted works (games/software excluded) is legal in a fair number of countries around the world, including most or all of the EU. This is because current law compares it to making copies in libraries. You are allowed to photocopy books, after all. Apart from scale and ease, downloading is no different. [uploading being another matter]

I’m not a fan of the publishing or music industry, but to try to justify illegal behavior, regardless of its economic impact, simply because one finds them distasteful strikes me as violently immature and irresponsible.

Again the big words. Violently immature, irresponsible, illegal.. And all that even though I've yet to see you support any of those adjectives.
In point of fact, it's not illegal, it's not "regardless of economic impact," (that is, if there was no impact, there would be no laws, and that goes both ways. Secondly the actual impact is wholly unknown, especially in the case of book downloads) and most of all, how in the devil's name is it "immature" to oppose things you disagree with in a lawful way?
"Illegal" is a legal term, not a moral one, and if you privately prefer to conflate the two, that's fine, but don't try to stack the deck with them to make your point. It's lame.