Quoted for truth

Surely you mean " Affecting ".

Yes, I'm a grammar talib. Problem?

Except for the fake replies, that already exists too. I'm afraid it doesn't do the "trollnet" part mentioned around here, though.

You forgot one small detail: even with javascript turned on, the Gawker page still has a seriously über-fucked up design that will scare all visitors away, which means nobody will watch their ads more than once.

In other words, you agree that the model you're trying to protect is immoral, yet you still try to protect it?

You forgot to add Uwe Boll to that list.

Because, even if they don't buy canned music, a sizable part of the people who listen to it are the type to buy merchandise and go to concerts, which does result in financial gain.

Even if applying the lucrum cesans principle to this context was not bullshit (which it is), it would still be completely different from theft.

But if you can't buy, by definition you are NOT a "lost sale". Thus, you can't harm them, at least not directly.

Fixed.

Let me remind everybody that what most of those folks mean with "free" has nothing to do with what you seem to think they mean.

It still makes sense, if I understand it right: Apple utterly hates that anybody other than Apple themselves has any control over anything that happens in their iSomethings, and the DRM meant that the Crapp^HCopyright holders had some control over iTunes content.

The USA is clearly a republic (which means that leadership is not hereditary); it's also a federation (because that's the way it's organized), and it's also a democracy (which means that people has the power; in a representative democracy, said people hires politicians to manage the country for them).
In other words, if they are saying that the USA is not a democracy because it's a republic, they're objectively wrong on at least two levels.

But it's still banned from stores, isn't it?

It doesn't, but it does make them a bank in Luxembourg, and you're their client. Sue them there.