It's suboptimal, but is it barely usable? If so, then people will use it because it's there.

It was the rant on his site against Wikipedia as a Web 2.0 startup (rather than, e.g., an educational charity) that really nailed his cogent and sound arguments for me.

"for some reason the guy thinks that most artists were paid an advance under the old recording label model. I wonder how true this was, really?"

What he means is that record company accounting means they will never, ever pay out a royalty cheque. All the money you will ever see from the label is the advance. You will usually get some royalties on publishing.

Musicians pirate Cubase and their VSTs all the frickin' time. By piracy theory, Steinberg should have gone bust by now selling dongleware.

I just looked,and apparently Wikipedia is indeed part of the conspiracy to destroy his business.

Fucksake. If musicians are this stupid they deserve career opportunities asking if people want fries with that. And I speak as someone with 400kg of vinyl records.

Good thing no-one ever told her rap was popular.

"Artists For An Ethical Internet". I'm sure the grass there is 100% organic and not artificial in any manner.

"Further the new boss through it’s surrogates like Electronic Frontier Foundation seems to be waging a cynical PR campaign that equates the unauthorized use of other people’s property (artist’s songs) with freedom."

The EFF? This guy's a lunatic and his career is completely fucked.

Perhaps Wikipedia's part of the conspiracy to destroy his business too.

Quite possibly, yes. Those are raw numbers from the Squid caches (a sample of 1 in 1000 hits).

The Wikimedia browser stats pretty much match the StatCounter ones: 25.36% IE, 24.99% Chrome.

Note that Wikimedia is (a) a top-10 site with a broad general international readership (b) a charity with no direct interest in the question of "which browser wins?" but only in knowing the actual answers, so as to serve the readers.