That is a different point.How is it childish to note that only a small minority of illegal downloads are real lost sales and that piracy may, in fact, contribute to legal sales?
First, the very claim that they wouldn't have paid for it anyway is suspect.And if the pirates really wouldn't have paid for it anyway, in what possible fashion has piracy harmed the industry?
And it's contradictory, because the "noble" characterization is that the "good" pirates would "contribute," as you put it.
I don't know how you can have it both ways, actually.
Besides you know -- I've seen your posts -- that if free copying and distribution is made legal, everyone will stop paying. Or at least the very few who would contribute voluntarily won't be enough to support someone creating content.
Ummmmm . . . no.And are you really trying to argue that the only people who should have knowledge and culture are people who can afford whatever price the market demands?
Then I don't get why you're all over me above. I'm arguing against legalized unlimited free copying and distribution.Yes, quite. I may consider free distribution to be a public service, but I acknowledge that without some mechanism for profit, the kind of entertainment (and research) that I enjoy and benefit from immensely would be impossible. People need to understand this.