[Blue Lion]

It boils down to "I own it", this idea of owning knowledge others have is currently deeply ingrained in the society, I don't know why. You CREATED it - if you OWN it after giving it away (even giving it away for money) is the question of this part of the discussion.

But it's not given away. There is pretty clear (give or take) rules on what a user can do with a work they have published by someone else.

Are you implying it's due to the internet? I have no information of this being any different ever.
Well, my answer would be due to commercials, social dynamic (it's "in", you go there with friends, you are curious because you have no knowledge if it sucks, etc etc)
At least that's the reason why I go to the cinema.

No, it is because the people who really wanted it, got it. But people will pay for stuff that is over 2 years old (mostly at a reduced cost).

Certainly that's not the point, otherwise the copyright wouldn't be extended beyond the death of the artist ("have a nice life" -> give sth to children), or, if you argue the artist wants to decide what can be done with his work afterwards, it would never expire.
Just look at the patent right for similarities.

Maybe "have a nice life" sounded not like it was intended, I wanted to say, that professional artists should be able to live of their work if they are good.

Good artists certainly do not always live well. There are artists who do good work and no one gives a damn and they are broke. Giving the work away for free isn't going to make them any richer.

Information is a necessity for democracy, how are you going to vote, roll a die?
And you ignored the first part: Without internet, I couldn't finish my studies - how's that a perfectly normal life?

Well let's hit the major points in this giant cop out.

1. Information is not solely on the internet. Democracy existed well before the internet. People do not have all knowledge now even with the internet. Useful tool? Absolutely. Probably one of the best ever. Absolutely required for human existence? No.

2. Yes you could finish your studies. I could go in and list the many ways this is possible but I'll give a question of my own to help show the reasons here.

I also go to college. I drive there. If I stop paying the bills on it and the car company comes and takes it away, can I say "You guys can't take it, I need it to get to college!"?

[Blue Lion]

Admittedly I have been ambiguous on a few points. Perhaps a brief overview of why I am pro-file sharing would be helpful.

There is no hard data to suggest that pirated media causes any significant loss in sales, and me (like a lot of other file-sharers out there) will quite often buy all of the things we download anyway. File-sharing opens me up to a broader spectrum of media that is more varied than what I see in advertisements elsewhere on the internet or TV.

You're still answering questions I'm not asking. I don't care if it's good, it's illegal. It's his work and if he wants to run it into the ground, he'll do it.

As to what I would potentially do with your content, provided that I liked it, I would probably go out and buy it.

You're not getting it, so I'll break it down. This is my personal work. Photos I've taken, family videos, stories I wrote for whatever reason. I'm not going to put them up for sale.

You're telling me that by creating these works, I am an artist. I should not be able to control the distribution of these works. They belong to everyone.

As to the distributor's rights regarding pricing and dissemination, frankly your position puzzles me. The distributor can set whatever price he or she desires, but out of necessesity it will, more often than not, be altered to compete with the current market.

For you (and, indeed, many major corporations) to ignore and debase file-sharing as a means of distribution is confusing, for if you choose to ignore a means of distributing your content because you do not like it, you have uselessly and pointlessly crippled yourself. You would have nothing to lose in trying it, and it could possibly even lead to greater exposure to your content.

And it's completely my right to do so.

"Hey that guy over there! He owns a work and isn't distributing it in the best way possible. Let's get him!"

If I write the greatest story ever told, don't I have the right to do with it what I please?

Suppose I want to lock it up and not let anyone read it.
Suppose I want to make it a bedtime story for my kids alone.
I want to write it on my wall for everyone to drive by and see.
I want to write a book and sell everyone on Earth a copy for .50.

You're telling me that once I write a work and it's good, it is no longer in my control.

Do these artists have a right to sell their work? If they do, people taking the work without the artists permission would be... wrong? Right?

[Blue Lion]

I do have a computer, but like I said it was a crappy second hand one that I need to last for 3 more years until I graduate and work full time again.

Luxury. Computers exist at colleges and in public libraries. You can also skip internet and use it free wifi at certain places.

Plus it isn't a luxury because.....surprise I need it sometimes to do things for school. Internet is with the 1.5x3 meter dorm room.

It's still a luxury no matter how many classes you want to take.

I do have a cell phone, but I bought it several years ago when I actually had a full time job and I still need it because I work part time and I don't have a landline. The rest is BS, I don't actually NEED to use any of that stuff so I don't have it.

You don't need a cell phone either. I lived just fine without one. I bought one because it was a convenience, not a need.

Your entire arguement is based on sweeping generalizations and logical fallacies. Myself and others have presented evidence in contraditiction to what you said, you ignored it.

For someone who considers college to be a need for living, you're having a lot of fun calling my arguments fallacies. College education is not a need. There are people right now alive and well in this country who didn't go to college.

Before you come in and rail on me for your personal choice and how it REQUIRES and NEEDS a PC and such, save it. You could have gotten a job that doesn't require a college education but you didn't.

I'm glad you're doing it, a college education is a great tool. It's not a requirement to life though. I would dare say more people live in the world without a college education that with one.

Let's not get such inconvenient facts get in the way, shall we?

What fact? That you think it's needed? I don't think it's needed. Who's right? If only there were definitions to help us determine what were needed to live.....

You must be right though, if we removed the internet or computer you would surely die of lack of information. I see it all the time in Africa and Asia. If only we could get those people a Dell.

[Blue Lion]

Example of reasonable pirating:
Torrent GTA4 to see how it runs, see how it plays, and mess around for a bit.  Buy it if a patch comes out at some point that makes it playable.

I love how people assume that people only steal stuff to test it. You download that full copy of a game or movie or song, try it one or two times and delete it to go buy it.

You have NO stolen software on your PC because you delete the stuff you dislike and buy the stuff you like (which you can't cause everyone is broke)

Call Rockstar up and ask them to demo their new game if you want to try it so bad. If they know you'll buy it and make them cash they'll do it, right?

I torrented GTA4.  It was reasonably good, didn't run that well, etc you know the rest.  But in the end, I did buy it for the multiplayer.  Not to mention Rockstar has actually made some patches...
The games I torrent and don't buy stay on my hard drive most of the time, but I don't play them more than a few hours.  I probably should delete them, because they haven't been run in months...  This huge hard drive can be useful at times.

Thank you for proving my point. You don't have to buy them and you don't delete them because you play them from time to time.

[Blue Lion]

Mostly marketing. Ads, endorsements, etc.

Marketing for what?

Ads? The work is free, why should anyone have to pay an artist for the use of the work?

If I write a song and everyone can get it for free, who is going to pay me money for it?

[The E]

Marketing for what?

Ads? The work is free, why should anyone have to pay an artist for the use of the work?

If I write a song and everyone can get it for free, who is going to pay me money for it?

Have you ever heard of this thing called "a concert"? People will actually go to a place with other people, where someone performs music on a "stage". Novel concept, that. It will never catch on, mark my words.

On a more serious note, what the Internet does regarding the music industry is something called "eliminating the middle man". Trent Reznor and Radiohead both seemed to have enjoyed moderate success with releasing their work basically for free (Radiohead gave customers the option to pay as much as they wanted for their album "In Rainbows", while Reznor released the latest NIN albums under a creative commons licence.)

[Blue Lion]

Marketing for what?

Ads? The work is free, why should anyone have to pay an artist for the use of the work?

If I write a song and everyone can get it for free, who is going to pay me money for it?

Have you ever heard of this thing called "a concert"? People will actually go to a place with other people, where someone performs music on a "stage". Novel concept, that. It will never catch on, mark my words.

As a work of art, it should be free.

Isn't a concert just like any other form of distribution that shouldn't be shackled by money? Wouldn't you be denying the culture these people think belongs to them?

On a more serious note, what the Internet does regarding the music industry is something called "eliminating the middle man". Trent Reznor and Radiohead both seemed to have enjoyed moderate success with releasing their work basically for free (Radiohead gave customers the option to pay as much as they wanted for their album "In Rainbows", while Reznor released the latest NIN albums under a creative commons licence.)

I think the internet is a great tool to market and distribute works. I think it could lower cost in distribution and help get the work to the masses in ways previously known. I've never not said that because it would be ridiculous.

My point is an artist (or owner of the rights to a work) should be able to determine how to sell it, where to sell it, how much to sell it for and frankly whether to sell it or not. The flip side of the coin is that random people don't get to decide it is free for them.

[Kosh]

Luxury. Computers exist at colleges and in public libraries. You can also skip internet and use it free wifi at certain places.

We don't have free wifi, and the internet doesn't go to foreign websites.

For someone who considers college to be a need for living, you're having a lot of fun calling my arguments fallacies. College education is not a need.

It is a need if you want to be a success. This isn't the 1950's where you can a good job with a diploma, get with the times. Yes there are plenty of super rich people that didn't go to college, but in reality the vast majority of people end up either being total failures or barely getting by.

You could have gotten a job that doesn't require a college education but you didn't.

In the real world it is hard to get a good job without college, I've tried it. You are just being a self-righteous bastard. Not all of us can run up daddy's credit line anytime we want to be spoiled.

I'm glad you're doing it, a college education is a great tool. It's not a requirement to life though.

Neither is bathing, and more people than not in the world get by without it.

It's still a luxury no matter how many classes you want to take.

No it isn't, no matter what perverted view of the world you have. The PC is a multi-purpose platform that can do a variety of tasks. An X-Box is a luxury.

You don't need a cell phone either. I lived just fine without one. I bought one because it was a convenience, not a need.

Yes it is, like I said I have no landline, and given that I do tutoring part time I need to be in touch anytime anywhere. So how do you propose I do that without a cell phone, telepathy? I don't have such talents.
 

I would dare say more people live in the world without a college education that with one.

And the majority of people in the world make 1/15 that of your average american or less.

[Uchuujinsan]

But it's not given away. There is pretty clear (give or take) rules on what a user can do with a work they have published by someone else.

I'm not sure I understand what you are planning to say. I have posession of the data. I see the reasoning here like "it's not given away cause it's mine, and it's mine cause I haven't given it away", but that would be illogical, so I'll assume I don't understand you here.
[/quote]

No, it is because the people who really wanted it, got it. But people will pay for stuff that is over 2 years old (mostly at a reduced cost).

Care to explain why you brought this up? I don't really see the connection why it should an argument against my original point.

Good artists certainly do not always live well. There are artists who do good work and no one gives a damn and they are broke. Giving the work away for free isn't going to make them any richer.

But not poorer as well, if you look at the studies and experements of such "small" artists (well, in fact it got them richer). Of course you can argue how "good" is defined as well. Back to the original point, "3." was about the purpose of the law, not how good it is fullfilled.

Well let's hit the major points in this giant cop out.

1. Information is not solely on the internet. Democracy existed well before the internet. People do not have all knowledge now even with the internet. Useful tool? Absolutely. Probably one of the best ever. Absolutely required for human existence? No.

2. Yes you could finish your studies. I could go in and list the many ways this is possible but I'll give a question of my own to help show the reasons here.

I also go to college. I drive there. If I stop paying the bills on it and the car company comes and takes it away, can I say "You guys can't take it, I need it to get to college!"?

While information is not soleley on the internet, you said, may I quote you:

That is not a necessity any more than TV is or radio. They're certainly useful and far and away some of the best tech that we have, but they aren't life and death for anyone.

Basically claiming that information media are not important (logically, while not explicitly including newspapers as well)
I have to pay for any of those media.
And if you have the money to pay for the car, would you stop paying it if you need it to go to university and have no other way? That would be the question similar to the situation with the computer/internet here.
And to add some explanation: If I ask others for Internet access, (or if you would ask others to lend you a car) it doesn't mean the need goes away, it just means there are possiblities to get those things without paying. However in many places that's true for food as well (that's how people on the street often eat), but you wouldn't say you don't need food.
Back to "do I need a computer/internet", you can certainly justify it quite well, why paying for computer/internet access has by a huge margin the priority before paying for entertainment.

[Blue Lion]

I'm not sure I understand what you are planning to say. I have posession of the data. I see the reasoning here like "it's not given away cause it's mine, and it's mine cause I haven't given it away", but that would be illogical, so I'll assume I don't understand you here.

If I go out and buy a Batman movie, I can't turn around and make copies for everyone. People are arguing here that once they make a Batman movie, everyone should be able to acquire it for free.

Care to explain why you brought this up? I don't really see the connection why it should an argument against my original point.

You mentioned that after about 2 years sales dropped. but it's not because the work got any worse. Most of the people who were going to buy it bought it already, but people still would buy it (as they often do).

But not poorer as well, if you look at the studies and experements of such "small" artists (well, in fact it got them richer). Of course you can argue how "good" is defined as well. Back to the original point, "3." was about the purpose of the law, not how good it is fullfilled.

The purpose of the law is to give artists the ability to hold their works. It does not REQUIRE them to sell it or horde it. And believe me, there are tons of starving artists no one gives a crap about.

While information is not soleley on the internet, you said, may I quote you:

That is not a necessity any more than TV is or radio. They're certainly useful and far and away some of the best tech that we have, but they aren't life and death for anyone.

Basically claiming that information media are not important (logically, while not explicitly including newspapers as well)
I have to pay for any of those media.

I didn't say it wasn't important. I said it wasn't a basic need. Something that one could argue was their right to own without giving payment of some kind.

And if you have the money to pay for the car, would you stop paying it if you need it to go to university and have no other way? That would be the question similar to the situation with the computer/internet here.

I would not! It is the easiest way. I, however, hold no illusions that it is the ONLY way or that I am somehow required to own it to get my college degree.

And to add some explanation: If I ask others for Internet access, (or if you would ask others to lend you a car) it doesn't mean the need goes away, it just means there are possiblities to get those things without paying. However in many places that's true for food as well (that's how people on the street often eat), but you wouldn't say you don't need food.

You're absolutely correct. Food (and other needs) are required to be bought. Why should this (as a want OR a need) be any different?

You're arguing something different than everyone else. You're arguing if it's a need or a want. Regardless, you have to pay for it. If you classify it as one or the other it doesn't suddenly become free.

Back to "do I need a computer/internet", you can certainly justify it quite well, why paying for computer/internet access has by a huge margin the priority before paying for entertainment.

That's all I'm saying. It is a priority. You made a decision. Computer and internet first, entertainment later. At some point you're just going to run out of money. It doesn't mean those things that you didn't buy are now free now as some are trying to argue.

[TrashMan]

Well let's hit the major points in this giant cop out.

1. Information is not solely on the internet. Democracy existed well before the internet. People do not have all knowledge now even with the internet. Useful tool? Absolutely. Probably one of the best ever. Absolutely required for human existence? No.

2. Yes you could finish your studies. I could go in and list the many ways this is possible but I'll give a question of my own to help show the reasons here.

I also go to college. I drive there. If I stop paying the bills on it and the car company comes and takes it away, can I say "You guys can't take it, I need it to get to college!"?

Nice how you're missing the point. If he didn't have a computer, he wouldn't even have any need for any computer games. Exactly what he has ATM is pretty much irrelevant.
Given that he has a computer, it is very much possible that with the internet and other necessities he just doesn't have enough money left over to buy original games. I know quite a few people who can't.

[Blue Lion]

Nice how you're missing the point. If he didn't have a computer, he wouldn't even have any need for any computer games. Exactly what he has ATM is pretty much irrelevant.
Given that he has a computer, it is very much possible that with the internet and other necessities he just doesn't have enough money left over to buy original games. I know quite a few people who can't.

I spent all my money on a the giant airplane, but I can't afford the fuel to fly it. So I guess it should be ok to take, right?

The games are not requirements. There are plenty of free (crappy) games to play.

I bought a TV but can't afford the ultra mega packages the companies offer, doesn't mean I just take them.

[Uchuujinsan]

If I go out and buy a Batman movie, I can't turn around and make copies for everyone. People are arguing here that once they make a Batman movie, everyone should be able to acquire it for free.

That's how the law currently is, yes, you can't make copies for everyone. And, as I see it,  people are not arguing to aquire it for free, they are arguing to share it for free after aquiring it, hence my original post. That's at least how I understood it. I might be wrong,

You mentioned that after about 2 years sales dropped. but it's not because the work got any worse. Most of the people who were going to buy it bought it already, but people still would buy it (as they often do).

Where did I mention that after about two years sales dropped? Even if I did, it still doesn't touch my original point.

The purpose of the law is to give artists the ability to hold their works. It does not REQUIRE them to sell it or horde it. And believe me, there are tons of starving artists no one gives a crap about.

You view of the purpose of the law doesn't reflect in the law itself, as I said earlier (and you ignored it). Well, and I again don't know what you are planing to say with the last two sentences. I see no logical connection of my statement with your argument.

I didn't say it wasn't important. I said it wasn't a basic need. Something that one could argue was their right to own without giving payment of some kind.

The legal definition of "basic need" has iirc a different opinion.
In both what's the definition of it, and what's the meaning of it. Certainly not to get it for free.
I tried to argue that information is necessary for a democracy, because you need it to vote - your counterargument was that internet isn't the only source of information. True, but I never claimed that, and it doesn't matter.
I said a) democracy needs information b) you always have to pay for this information in some way c) so using the money you pay anyway (for fullfilling a basic need of democracy) to use the method of internet access isn't a luxury
you claimed before my previous post that internet wasn't the only way to access information, completely missing what I was trying to say. Well, maybe my fault for not being clear enough.

I would not! It is the easiest way. I, however, hold no illusions that it is the ONLY way or that I am somehow required to own it to get my college degree.

if you need it to go to university and have no other way?

I would not! It is the easiest way. I, however, hold no illusions that it is the ONLY way

You have semmed to miss some part of the question.

You're absolutely correct. Food (and other needs) are required to be bought. Why should this (as a want OR a need) be any different?

You're arguing something different than everyone else. You're arguing if it's a need or a want. Regardless, you have to pay for it. If you classify it as one or the other it doesn't suddenly become free.

Please don't mix different topics, the context for this statement was if internet access is a basic need. I just tried to say that because you can somehow get it for free it doesn't make it no basic need, trying to refute an argument I expected to be brought up. I was right:

Computers exist at colleges and in public libraries. You can also skip internet and use it free wifi at certain places.

That's all I'm saying. It is a priority. You made a decision. Computer and internet first, entertainment later. At some point you're just going to run out of money. It doesn't mean those things that you didn't buy are now free now as some are trying to argue.

At some point you're just going to run out of money

Thanks, that's what people were trying to tell you. \o/

After you ran out of money, the financial loss of the company for YOU copying their work is zero.
Look back at page 6 top, at thesizzler. That's were this started.



Note: I don't want to drag on this discussion indefinitely, so'll not answer on points I feel are resolved, and the argument went of into an unrelated direction.

[Kosh]

I spent all my money on a the giant airplane, but I can't afford the fuel to fly it. So I guess it should be ok to take, right?

No, that's theft, not copying. The more proper analogy would be you replicated someone elses oil without permission. Get your terms straight. It isn't theft.

[Blue Lion]

That's how the law currently is, yes, you can't make copies for everyone. And, as I see it,  people are not arguing to aquire it for free, they are arguing to share it for free after aquiring it, hence my original post. That's at least how I understood it. I might be wrong,

The people you share it with would then acquire it for free.  

If you buy a movie and make me a copy, I didn't buy it. I acquired it for free.

Where did I mention that after about two years sales dropped? Even if I did, it still doesn't touch my original point.

"2. In a discussion with two of my friends, we came to the conclusion, that a limitation of copyright to only two years wouldn't hurt the movie or music industrie that much. Movies are a profit or loss after the first few weeks in the cinemas afaik, so what's afterwards only matters for DVDs."

You're talking about sales figures and mention that 2 years would be a good cutoff. Why exactly did you pick the 2 year time frame then?

You view of the purpose of the law doesn't reflect in the law itself, as I said earlier (and you ignored it). Well, and I again don't know what you are planing to say with the last two sentences. I see no logical connection of my statement with your argument.

Wait, copyright law isn't designed to give owners of works the ability to do what they want with their work?

Please describe what copyright law is intended to do then.

Copyright law has absolutely no connection with how much money an artist makes. It doesn't care whether you make more money, less money, no money, anything. The fact that artists live well or don't live well is completely irrelevant.

The legal definition of "basic need" has iirc a different opinion.
In both what's the definition of it, and what's the meaning of it. Certainly not to get it for free.

Yet people argue these works should be free because they need them.

I tried to argue that information is necessary for a democracy, because you need it to vote - your counterargument was that internet isn't the only source of information. True, but I never claimed that, and it doesn't matter.
I said a) democracy needs information b) you always have to pay for this information in some way c) so using the money you pay anyway (for fullfilling a basic need of democracy) to use the method of internet access isn't a luxury
you claimed before my previous post that internet wasn't the only way to access information, completely missing what I was trying to say. Well, maybe my fault for not being clear enough.

Then I don't see the point you ARE trying to make. Information is needed for democracy but the means to convey it isn't free.

Are you saying things that convey information should be free? TVs and radios and newspapers shouldn't be sold but handed out for free? I don't get the point you're making.

Please don't mix different topics, the context for this statement was if internet access is a basic need.

Which is isn't. My parents lived just fine without it. People all around the world live just fine without it. No one dies from lack of internet.

I just tried to say that because you can somehow get it for free it doesn't make it no basic need, trying to refute an argument I expected to be brought up. I was right:
Computers exist at colleges and in public libraries. You can also skip internet and use it free wifi at certain places.

I didn't say anything wasn't a basic need because you can buy it. I said that items that exist for your use for free can still be sold and it's a choice to do so.

You don't HAVE to buy a computer or pay for internet, you CHOOSE to do so because it is easier.

And no, computers are not a basic need. No matter how addicted to its use you may be.

Thanks, that's what people were trying to tell you. \o/

People were trying to tell me that people don't have unlimited funds?   I was aware of the fact that this was the case. I've never said people should have the funds to buy all the works in the world.

After you ran out of money, the financial loss of the company for YOU copying their work is zero.
Look back at page 6 top, at thesizzler. That's were this started.

I've yet to argue anything else. I don't care how much they may or may not lose. If they don't want to give it to me for free, I don't get it! It's not mine to take!


If you don't have the money to buy it, you don't get it! So sad. They own it. It is theirs.

It again boils down to greed. You WANT it, you feel you deserve it. You desire it, but you don't want to pay for it because you want other things more. So you steal it... oh I'm sorry, you don't "steal" it, you "illegally posses that which you have no right".

You want the new movies, songs, games. Things people put time and effort and money into. You want these things but don't want to buy them. Too damn bad. You didn't make them, you didn't create them. They aren't yours.

You want to benefit from someone's work without giving them anything for it. They don't want you to have it. You don't get it then.

[Blue Lion]

I spent all my money on a the giant airplane, but I can't afford the fuel to fly it. So I guess it should be ok to take, right?

No, that's theft, not copying. The more proper analogy would be you replicated someone elses oil without permission. Get your terms straight. It isn't theft.

It's a work that someone made that you now have.

It's a movie that someone thought up, wrote down, made, edited and distributed. The idea that you didn't take a physical thing from them is irrelevant since you don't want anything physical anyways.

But it still has value, you're taking that value from someone. You would think a college educated person would know this. (Or do you plagiarize all the time too?)

[Rick James]

You're not getting it, so I'll break it down. This is my personal work. Photos I've taken, family videos, stories I wrote for whatever reason. I'm not going to put them up for sale.

You're telling me that by creating these works, I am an artist. I should not be able to control the distribution of these works. They belong to everyone.

No, you're the one who's not getting it. I've said this again and again: I, and everybody else, do not want your personal stuff. Because your family photos and home videos and personal stories are of a mostly sentimental value to you and you alone, nobody is asking you to doll them away for free.

[Blue Lion]

No, you're the one who's not getting it. I've said this again and again: I, and everybody else, do not want your personal stuff. Because your family photos and home videos and personal stories are of a mostly sentimental value to you and you alone, nobody is asking you to doll them away for free.

Yea, you are.

You want big companies to doll out their work for free.

The only difference between a movie I make and a movie MGM makes is you want theirs and not mine.

Your greed is showing through. You don't want all work to be free, you want the stuff you desire to be free.

What is the difference between my movies and their movies besides the fact that you don't want mine?

If your argument is works of art should be free for the benefit of everyone, my works should be included in that, right?

[Rick James]

You want big companies to doll out their work for free.

The only difference between a movie I make and a movie MGM makes is you want theirs and not mine.

Your greed is showing through. You don't want all work to be free, you want the stuff you desire to be free.

What is the difference between my movies and their movies besides the fact that you don't want mine?

If your argument is works of art should be free for the benefit of everyone, my works should be included in that, right?

Then let me amend my statement, because you're clearly not getting: all commercially released material should be made available. And, as I've said before, I buy the things I download.

[Blue Lion]

You want big companies to doll out their work for free.

The only difference between a movie I make and a movie MGM makes is you want theirs and not mine.

Your greed is showing through. You don't want all work to be free, you want the stuff you desire to be free.

What is the difference between my movies and their movies besides the fact that you don't want mine?

If your argument is works of art should be free for the benefit of everyone, my works should be included in that, right?

Then let me amend my statement, because you're clearly not getting: all commercially released material should be made available. And, as I've said before, I buy the things I download.

It's not really commercial if it's free. 

If they are free, why are people going to buy them?

Again, you are just showing this isn't about art being free, it's art you want but can't afford to be free.