Until we get off the distribution per unit model of retail we will have this war against consumers.

That is being very generous to the pimply-faced downloaders. I am quite sure the costs upfront or otherwise have no bearing.

So different mechanisms of encouraging content creation need to be found; the fight we should be fighting has little to do with preserving copyright in its historical form.

When there is a viable mechanism of content creation it will gradually take over, just like every industry.

You can't tell people to give up their horse and buggy if the cars aren't ready yet.

I feel copyright is one of those. I want to see the individuals that make the creative digital goods I consume well compensated and happy, because they make amazing things. But simultaneously, I realize my duplication of that good costs no one anything except potential lost sales and fractions of a cent of electricity.

Because the govt is receiving boatloads of money from the entities that profit from copyright laws.

This is a false and very cheap thought. For two reasons:

1) there isn't a thing such as "[all the] people". I know many people who don't want to pay, and I know many people who want to pay. you can't really prove even that most of the people belongs to the first category.

2) even if we assumed that "people don't want to pay", this wouldn't explain the examples of mainstream products that have been (successfully) sold by donation, which shows that there is a sufficient (at the very least) people that does want to pay. a couple of examples are radiohead and a comedian whose name I forgot, but also many others.

... by units sold, say? Maybe the best-selling content is so because it's downloaded more, not vice-versa as you asserted. Or maybe there's a third factor that causes both. Correlation does not imply causation.

What of those who, as the GP said s/he does, download for free, then buy a copy if they actually like it?

If a product is of unknown quality, but known to be free to copy, it's sound economics to value it at zero. Supply is infinite and demand is indeterminate. Once you know more about it, and know how much you want it, you may want to pay for it. Or you may not, if you don't like it or are a cheapskate. C'est la vie.

It's more likely than you'd think: http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/apr/21/study-finds-pira...

I pay for netflix and Amazon Prime. In fact I would pay 2-3x more for netflix if they had everything. (Not even new stuff, but old stuff)

I don't buy dvd's because the value is not there for me. If I am just going to watch something once or twice, its worth ~$1 to me, not $20 like a new dvd.

I don't go down to blockbuster/Red Box because the negative utility of getting in my car and going to a store is worse than just downloading it.

It's just that I have heard the 'people dont want to pay, period.' argument made before and I think its not true. I think there are multiple reasons why people download illegally and being cheap or being unable to pay is just one reason.

(20 euros for 90 minutes of entertainment is a bit high)