1) I am boycotting first and foremost. If I were unable to listen without paying (as indeed I am for a significant portion of my obscure tastes) I still would n

1) I am boycotting first and foremost. If I were unable to listen without paying (as indeed I am for a significant portion of my obscure tastes) I still would not pay. The fact that I still listen to music I like through piracy is a separate issue, IMHO, because of this. Like I say, whenever I find music I like with no industry involvement, I pay for it without giving piracy a second thought. 2) No, I'm OK with you taking the car, as long as the original is left where it is. If you can't think of a way to do that with a physical object such as a car, then your original analogy was flawed. Again: If my employer didn't pay me, the time that I had worked for that pay would not be left untouched and marketable - it would be gone, ie, stolen rather than illegally copied. The lack of loss of the original is key in the piracy debate, these analogies are flawed because they don't analogise that key point. Piracy is a loss of potential market share, not a loss of something tangible like a car, or my time. In my case that market share simply does not exist - I have deprived the labels of nothing that I haven't already deprived them of through my boycotting.