“I for one totally envy that internet “guru” getting a fat check to play Bejewelled all week then turn in a report saying “yup, the internet still exists”.”

It’s his job to tell you whatever is going to keep him employed.

Seriously, stop complaining and find a better way to invest your money.

I can understand people wanting to get paid for their work. (Although if we can build Star Trek-like food replicators we won’t need to worry about getting paid for anything at all.) But there is a bit of hypocrisy with someone creating something intended to have value, then complaining that people actually find it valuable enough to spend their time viewing, but not valuable enough to expend their time AND money on.

Here’s an idea: Be honest with people. People are a lot more likely to be “moral” and “honest” when they feel like they’re actually making a positive or negative difference in a real human being’s life. Look at Causes on Facebook as a good example. Make your stuff available online and at the beginning of your video or somewhere in there put something that says why you sell your stuff. “Hey guys, I work hard to make this good stuff, and I need to eat and live just like you. I want you to see it, and if you’re not going to pay for it directly, at least come to my website. I have lots of other good stuff stuff and just coming to my site makes me some money because I get ad revenue. You get something valuable for free by downloading my movie–my movie–and I get something valuable for free–money from advertisers–by you typing in a web address.”

The fellow who stated that he was robbed 5000 times is making a very emotional response to his situation. But rage is not the same as logic. To be robbed a person must first possess what he feels has been stolen. Had the artist sold 5000 copies of his work and had the profits stolen, yes, he would have been robbed 5000 times. Or at least robbed of the profits of 5000 sales. But he didn’t rent or sell 5000 copies. He didn’t even make 5000 copies. All he can say for certain is that he has lost the POSSIBLE opportunity to make 5000 sales or rentals. That’s possible, not certain or probable or even likely. He doesn’t know how many, or if any, of the persons involved would ever have bought or rented his work. He has no more been robbed than a person who bet the wrong horse or bought the wrong stock has lost money. Such a person would not have gotten the money he thought or wished he would have gotten. But he didn’t get money and then lose it.

Mr. 5000 copies is instead taking the position “you saw my movie so now you owe me”. Since he can’t collect he claims he was robbed. But the viewers of his work made no such agreement. He can’t hold them to a one sided contract signed only by himself.

“You DO know, don’t you, that courts have ruled that “free advertising” is no defense against infringement?”

Given that he didn’t say it was, it seems reasonable to think he does.

“Well, of COURSE you don’t know or you wouldn’t have written that vacuous statement.”

And yet you didn’t need a reason to write a vacuous statement.

Wanting to do something and being able to do something are two different things and I think it is quite clear in the case of anyone who complains about piracy that they believe to some degree (wrongly, but they’re being a bit slow about realising it) that piracy will create the conditions where they would be unable to do those things.

Because of this I don’t think it is reasonable to say that there is a contradiction in what Dano said or that it in anyway provides a case, let alone an airtight one for abolishing copyright.

It is true to say that if people could not get paid to create art of any kind they would still create art, but these people believe that some of the more expensive ways of creating art would be/are being badly affected by piracy.
On top of that we have to acknowledge that the disruption caused by the internet’s ability to transfer digital information does impact negatively on the previous gatekeepers along with some of the distribution methods that we are all familiar with and these guys have a tendency to conflate the gatekeepers and the distribution methods with the industries that they are/were the gatekeepers and distribution methods of and therefore kick against them.

It is saddening to see them waste so much time, energy and money (especially when they force everyone else to waste time, energy and money on it too) on fighting against the new ability of Artists to have a much easier time finding and developing supporters which will inevitably mean that far more artists will be able to make a living doing what they want to do than ever before.