saying "the time is the issue to me" does not make time the issue. Like I stated. If the issue were merely time, then there would be one hourly wage that we had all agreed upon for a person's time. Maybe with a multiplier for how much energy the expel. But That's not how pay works. The more expertise and specialized knowledge and skill a task requires, the more the task is typically considered "worth". That's why someone ho spends 8 hours lifting heavy boxes and expelling huge amounts of energy makes 12 dollars an hour and someone who sits around typing up code expending relatively little energy makes much more.

Also: what are your thoughts on sneaking into a concert? Do you consider that OK since the band is going to perform anyways? They're going to expel just as much energy is 999 people buy tickets and 1 sneaks in as if 1 buys a ticket and 999 sneak in. So is THAT justified to you?

But the time isn't really the issue. You aren't paying the man X to come over and stand around near your pipes for a few hours. What you're actually paying for is his service. You are trading the benefit of his years of training and experience for X.

The fact that he has to come over and waste time in order to provide you with the benefit of his skills merely INCREASES the price. That's why the more highly trained someone is, the more they charge per hour. You aren't paying for time. You're paying for the benefit of the investment of time and money that went into developing that skill.

That is why copyright law exists. So that results of skill, the fruits of which can be easily benefited from without compensating the creator, don't lead to violation of the same deal. The artist has just as much right to only allow people who have met his conditions and his X receive the fruits of his years of accumulated talent involving the cost (time and or money) of music training, the opportunity cost of going into a different profession, the cost of equipment, promotion etc.

Potential revenue is not revenue. I am not disputing this point. What I'm disputing is the claim that you should be allowed to receive the result of the artists work without paying the amount they agree to. You don't have to buy the album. That's totally fine. Their failure to convince you to is their loss of revenue. But if you download the album and not pay for it, you have broken a deal you knew existed, you have effectively, as soon as you finish downloading that album, turned "potential income" into "stolen goods" because you have received your end of the deal without giving the rightful owner their end and you are legally liable for that end. Like I said, if you don't feel the deal is worth it, you can just NOT get the album. But you can't have it both ways. You can't benefit from the service and not pay the amount asked for in exchange for that benefit.

I'm going to assume you mean "you wasted his time".

File sharing DOES directly "waste the time", as you put it, of the artist. Like the plumbing example. The plumber has the following deal "I will provide you with the fruits of the service I am trained in, working pipes, in exchange for X dollars." if you get the fruits of this service, and do not give him X dollars, you are depriving him of his due income.

Musicians have the same deal "I will provide you with the fruits of the service I am trained in, a collection of recorded musical tracks, in exchange for X dollars." If you get this collection but do not give the musician X dollars. You are depriving him of due income. If you feel X is too much, or do not like the way X will be divided or who has the right to X then you have the legal option to NOT ENTER IN THE DEAL. But if you acquire for yourself a copy of the fruits of their labour and do not pay them X, you are depriving them of due payment.

No, seriously, deprivation doesn't require ownership. If someone is sleep deprived they do not have sleep they already have removed. They are denied further sleep.

If a plumber comes over and fixes your pipes, and you then refuse to pay him, you are depriving him of his wages. He at no point HAD your money, but you are still taking his services without compensating him for them.

Instead of paying the 12 pounds, can I just copy whatever I get for joining off my friend who did? I feel it's more in the spirit of what you represent.

No. Actually to be deprived of something you need to not be given it when you otherwise would. If you deprive your child of food you aren't taking away food he already has. You're not giving him food he should have.

I recently switched to Chrome because it DOESN'T creep its way up to the 2 gig memory usage mark after awhile like Firefox has recently been doing on my machine. It had nothing to do with how shiny Chrome is.

You mean the CSE? The Canadian agency that works with, but is entirely separate from and not related to, the NSA?

See the queen or the GG?

If you can argue a preacher "sells" their beliefs and then require proof of their faith you would shut down all religions ever. That's not how it works.

he prorogued parliament. Effectively shut down the entire system for 3 months.

I don't know how people still support him after that. It was a flagrant misuse of the prorogation system to bypass a legitimate political procedure designed specifically for that situation. If I were the GG I'd have told him to go eat a dick on the queen's behalf and take his power loss like a man.

I recall the opposition getting together to hold a no confidence vote. Harper nuked the government for 3 months in response.

they can say "God hate's fags". They can't say "everyone should kill fags"

we define "hate" pretty specifically.

It's too long to write out in full but basically you need to publicly call for or advocate violence against a minority group with intent of people listening to you and going through with it.