[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

So you can prove that all of the alleged illegal downloaders would all have purchased a copy of said media if they had not downloaded it can you? I think not.

No Mick, that's not what I'm actually saying or attempting to prove. I'm saying that under the constraints if the exisiting business model in order to have obtained a full copy for the purposes of determining whether it was "any good or not" one (in ones' capacity as a "consumer" as opposed to a reviewer or critic) would have been expected to have purchased a copy of same. That someone elects to get a copy by other, illegal means, means merely that they sought to circumvent the purchasing process to acquire same. Whether they like / liked it or not under normal conventional business circumstances they would have had to buy a copy to arrive at that determination. So, in effect yes - an illegally downloaded copy - for the purposes of "evaluation" is a lost sale.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I suggest that as the number of illegal downloads made is an unknown factor ergo the number who would have purchased if an illegal download was unavailable is equally unknown, as is the number who did purchase after making an illegal download and the sales lost because of reports by critics and illegal downloaders that the product was the usual complete tripe.

Suggest what you want. You are positing the age old excuse of "I only download to see if I like it and then I go and buy it". I have dealt with this position in earlier references to TV, Radio etc and, as you point out in your quote below, there are plenty of alternative sources to provide indicators which completely obviate any need for someone to download.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Your statement is patently untrue. You omit to mention word of mouth from disappointed purchasers, you also omit legitimate reviews from Critics which can be found in the press, on TV and on the Net.

"Patently untrue"? Tell me Mick, since when have "word of mouth from disappointed purchasers....legitimate reviews from Critics which can be found in the press, on TV and on the Net" constituted "a true copy of any quality"? My comment above refers.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

It's refreshing to hear you freely admit the Industry you support so vociferously hinges so much on deception as a business model. It is therefore unsurprising that so many seem to take so much delight in ripping it off. Sow and Reap come to mind.

I highlighted the practice (business model) I don't believe that I've said anywhere that I supported it.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

There is no need to advocate the illegality of downloading copyrighted media to me as I have never defended it.

I'm at a loss as to why you feel the need to make that statement or as to why you thought / felt I was trying to "advocate the illegality" of anything to you or that I assumed that you defended anything that I didn't advocate the illegality of to you. I assumed, from your lack of interaction and argument to the contrary that you understood the premise. Now that you've made it clear that you understand the illegality of it I'm happy to put it to bed.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

I am of the opinion that this is just the latest attempt using the latest pretext to roll it out.

Probably right, however my assertion stands - were it not for the wanton illegal pillaging of copyright works the Government would have no legally arguable pretext (beyond terrorism & national security) to roll it out.

Originally Posted by Mick Fisher

Not forgetting of course our Oppressive Regime's tendency to roll over at the slightest behest from Washington.

Beyond dispute.