> You used a characterization of media sharing as "piracy", as "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creat

> You used a characterization of media sharing as "piracy", as "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything". I meant exactly what I said: I am against "people who feel entitled to consume an arbitrary amount of music/movies without paying the creators anything." I didn't say this includes everyone who downloads things over BitTorrent (and I don't believe that it does). I didn't say this includes everyone who sends their friends songs sometimes (and I don't believe that it does). You made this association, not me. It does include people who say things like "I just discovered BitTorrent, which is great because now I don't have to pay for movies any more." Which as I mentioned in another comment, includes someone I met in real life just yesterday. > The important point I'm trying to make here is that the idea that everyone who reads a book, watches a movie, or listens to a song needs to have engaged in some economic transaction prior to doing so (through either direct purchase or subjection to advertising) is a wholly wrong and dangerous notion. Well if we're talking in extremes, it is an equally wrong and dangerous notion that the compensation of creative people should be solely dependent on charity, with no recourse against freeloaders. What do you think would happen to the movie industry if the ticket booth at theaters were replaced with an offering plate?