Well fuck me, there are other charities in Holland asides the rent-share scheme I was talking specifically about, I never knew that.
That argument makes no sense to me. For one thing, why is it wrong for an artist to generate enough income to be able to allow 99 additional people to work and support their families? That seems to me to be a good thing - not a NOT good thing. Amd what about Margaret? She makes crafty and artistic leather belts and belt buckles and sells them at craft fairs. She makes a small amount of pocket change on them. I guess that is okay by your argument. Oh - she also paid an "entry" fee to the craft organizers to be able to have a table at the craft fair to sell those belt buckles. So the craft fair organizers made a little bit of change off of Margaret. Margaret is happy to pay the entry fee, because she usually makes more than that from her belt and buckle sales. If she didn't pay the entry fee, she could not have a table at the fair, and so would not be selling those things. But I guess, by your argument, that is NOT okay by your argument for her to happily pay that fee and allow the craft fair organizers to make soome money "off" of her (even though they mutually benefit). That argument you offer makes no sense to me. /shrug
It's essentially stealing, but it depends. If you never buy any music, movies, ect, then it's straight up stealing. If you do in fact buy music, go to concerts, whatever, than it's more like eating grapes at the supermarket. There's a lot of bands I would've never heard of without illegally downloading their music at one point just because I can't afford to buy every album that looks interesting, especially when some of them wind up being terrible. This was especially true in pre youtube days.
Well, back in the days of vinyl :wheelchair:, we had to discover new bands based soley on the album's cover art and photos of the band (if any)...boy did we get burned a lot. Discovering a cool non-mainsteam band back then was truly something to talk about... ZW