But where have you actually disagreed and countered my views (as in what I actually wrote)? You seem to be making up your own arguments based on prima facie associations and assumptions. Please explain to me how you think my downloading the latest Doctor Who episode via torrent-based technology, and everything else I wrote about paying for legal DW downloads is not taking into account the artist. How does that lead to the artists loosing out financially? look, I'm not denying that some illegal downloads have had some kind of an effect on certain artists and general elements of the entertainment industry. But nor do I think it has the kind of effects you seem to believe it does. And on another level, nor do I believe it's ever going to change. Hence the need for change/adaptation/evolution. Just to add to what I said about the BBC, so long the current profit-based system is in place I would actually be quite happy to see the rules changed to the point where people like me have to pay to view the likes of Doctor Who on bbciplayer. And if that surprises you then then I would suggest that you've not been paying attention. Rather, you appear to be more fixated on this false perception you have of me. You also appear to be overlooking what I said about feeling/recognising that the system has to change/adapt if artists are to be 'set free' so to speak. Because rather than ask me to verify exactly what I mean when I use such language as "free", you simply assume, project, mock, sterotype and proceed with your isolated little dismissals. All you seem to hear in your head is 'hippie dippie anti-capitalist nonsense', which is getting pretty boring now by the way. And I'm sorry but there's just no reasoning with that kind of truncated 'in-the-box thinking'. If you expect me to take you seriously then give examples, as opposed to politicised rhetoric, niave standardised pigeonholing and baseless ad hominems.