> The idea that artists will continue to make art even if they never get paid is bullshit.
That's how it where, that's how it is, that's how it'll be.
> Rather, there will just be a preponderance of bad free art.
Which art is bad?
> Without patronage, there is no art.
Wow this man has been living in a cave.
> This is just common sense, do you really think an artist is going to keep making music if he or she can't afford to live?
Common sense? The more I hear this, the more it loses its meaning. Artists have already done this, it has already happened and it will happen again. Affording to live is not 'having a car, a job, a house, a watch, a computer and a wife'. Humans can survive by eating roots if they want to, god damnit.
> If you still don't believe me, just look at history--great advancements in art didn't come until there were patrons rich enough to support artists.
Which are the great advancements you speak of?
> But whatever you do, don't try to make yourself feel better by imagining that pirating music isn't a crime and doesn't hurt anyone.
A whole song is simply a representation of the original sound in a simple number. That's right. The whole song is a simple number. That number is the sum of the powers of the binary digits that the file is made of. If you think pirating music is a crime, you believe that knowing a number is a crime.
Moreover, I'm not a fucking pussy. I wouldn't try to make myself feel better just to feel better - I enjoy sadness the same way I enjoy happiness, and I don't give a shit about anything. Since you went into the subject of ethics and morals, I've read about that too. Do you know it's been proven that there couldn't possibly be ultimate ethics/morals? That means if you're saying that downloading music is a crime, then it's relative to your position in the argument and not an absolute truth. Get it?
> I don't care if you do pirate stuff, just don't be a self-righteous hypocrite about it.
Well, I don't care, and you can be anything you want to without me caring. There.
> And >>10, I don't know where you get off calling yourself a "lower-class."
I'm >>10 and I did not call myself lower-class. Read my post again.
> If you have access to the internet, you can afford to buy music.
Faulty logic. It's funny because you made a logic mistake twice. Once assuming I have access to the internet simply because I was able to make a post here, second because you believe having access to the internet somehow makes affording music true.
> Don't complain about being "lower-class" until you can only afford the basic necessities of life.
Which are? Eating and sleeping? You know, I have to pay the motherfucking government to do that too, just because I'm doing it in its territory. The government is like a giant dog that took a piss in the land and proclaimed it its territory. Maybe if I disappear in the wilderness they'll leave me alone.
> as of 2009, Internet is becoming one of the basic necessities of life
Purposedly. It's more convenient for banks, for the police, et cetera.
>>14
Yes I would. And then I'd distribute it in the whole neighborhood.