You can't seem to stop replying yourself you also continue to lob insults rather than stick to the issue at hand. This is how you are acting with these crazy responses. Seriously.

OK so basically you're saying that not only that I am wrong, but both the House and Senate are wrong *AND* the FBI are also wrong. So we're *all* wrong but you, little pleeb on the internet, are the one that is right.

The FBI link I just sent you to called it theft. Multiple times.

It does not have to be a tangible item to be considered theft. Stealing secrets is considered theft of intellectual property.

It's theft, you taking something that doesn't belong to you and has monetary value is theft. The laws refer to it as theft because it is and you refuse to answer any other question as to whether digitally replicating software is theft, or movies is theft, or books is theft.

THEFT THEFT THEFT THEFT THEFT THEFT THEFT! IT'S THEFT!!!!! WOOT!

You're really not calm. You're acting like a crazy person. And one that doesn't understand the financials of artists *needing* all sources of income. No need to be snide or call people cunts, move on and take your PUA haterade elsewhere.

Hey crazy person. You just negated your ENTIRE crazy pants, obscenity laced diatribe by acknowledging the following:

It doesn't matter on what scale. It's still illegal to digitally replicate if the work is copyrighted. Just like you can't replicate software, or books or anything else.

You replicating a digital file is not the same as an art student re-painting the same work. Comparing apples to apples then an individual would need to recreate the work on their own (performing it and recording it themselves) to meet your criteria. If an individual prints and frames a work themselves, yes it's…

Actually it IS illegal, it's copyright infringement.

It is illegal if you are replicating someone's work with the intent to distribute, there's fair use and there's stealing. It's not what you think is the law. It's the law.

Actually it is illegal to replicate someone else's painting. Their work is copyrighted.

It's always astonishing to me the way people justify not paying for an artist's work. The internet goes wild when a corporation steals someone's design off etsy, or another steals a photograph without giving credit, or a t-shirt design but when a bunch of individuals want to not pay for music I see the most twisted…

In 2013 she sold 1.3 million albums. This year she sold 300,000 albums prior to the new release. The 4th quarter of 2013 album sales of Red (the 2012 release) were over 200K so we're at half a million albums not including any back catalog. Just off her 2012 album the single sales just the first 3 months of 2014 were…

Yeah, the problem is if you pay attention to Spotify's language there is no real guarantee of millions. Based on what her label has received the past 12 months they are nowhere near the millions mark.

Universal is acting as distributor rather than label. Distribution percentages vary but typically between 10 and 20%.

So basically you're of the ilk that it's better to get paid pennies than nothing? Why not be of the ilk that if you like music you should consider supporting the artist with your pocketbook?