We're not talking at all about copyright right now.  Nor, really, my feelings about what is outdated in the film industry.

Right now I'm kinda just trying to pin down where we disagree on the concept of a thing being made with the express purpose of being purchased, and someone not purchasing it, still getting the benefits of having purchased it, and any argument that doesn't devolve into "well, you really can't expect me to pay for something, can you?"

Not to mention the fact that you don't use buggy whips and do watch movies.

And THERE'S the disconnect.  You see digital media reduced as such.  Yet there is an immense difference between an idea and an idea that is explored, developed, produced, and cultivated by someone.  You're not buying information, you're buying the presentation.

Here's an idea:  I think a cool story is one where a kid who lives on a space farm has an old man friend and they fly away with another guy to fight bad guys in space and big explosion and medals.  That's an idea.  STAR WARS is that idea, with value added to it by countless talented people who worked really hard in taking that shitty sentence and making it a movie.  You view Backyard Blockbusters as a wiki page, when it's a lot more than the data it presents.  Watching a film, listening to a song, reading a book...these are experiences.   You're paying for an experience, not info.  If you want info, Wikipedia is right around the corner and it's free.  But if you want to sit down and watch Backyard Blockbusters (or my MMA doc, which I found out was being bootlegged in Brazil 10 years back) then you owe something (to be determined by the creator, imho) to the people who took plain old info, and with their expertise, perspective, and most importantly TIME AND EFFORT, turned it into something that it wasn't before.

Well then you're almost there! All you have to do is to realize that, if someone has no intention of paying for something, and still makes a copy of it, then there is absolutely no negative consequence for anyone. Only a net positive for the person who made the copy.

It's true that every pirated copy is not necessarily a lost sale. Somebody may torrent Transformers 3 and watch it for free, but they would never pay to watch it. I'm with you there.

But why would somebody willingly put their product in a position where people could do that more easily? It takes time, effort, and money to make a movie, and you make that investment in the hope that the movie will turn a profit and you will be compensated. So you make a distribution deal, and people have to pay if they want to see your movie. That's a fair system. Why should a company willingly indulge the people who want to see it for free, who don't care enough to pay? There's no benefit to them. With digital copies it may not be a physical object you're selling, but it's still a product and it still has value. The system you outline doesn't make any sense.

Why? Because if they make it more difficult for someone to watch it by paying, and if the version that someone gets by paying is inferior (with can't-skip sections, for example) they are crippling their business model. That's why Apple stopped selling drm music - people can download it free, but if the paid service is as good (or even better) and not crippled, then (some) people will pay.

Let me give you another example, and I'd love to get your opinion on this Greg.  My friend, the supremely awesome Melita Curphy owns a website called missmosnter.com

There, she sells clothing, accessories, dolls, statues, and other art of hers that you can purchase.  This is her profession.  SHe does no other job for a living.  She is one of the busiest people I know.  Part of the reason she is busy is because a good chuck of her time is spent busting people on deviantart, cafe press, and zazzle who take her images off her website, and see merch of it on coffee mugs and shirts. 

Now, under your logic.....all anyone is doing is taking an image that is digital and doing something with it.  So it's ok, right?  If you think not, I'd like to hear why.

Well more power to them - they've figured out how to make a living doing something despite technology changing the landscape for them. We should just be grateful that they didn't have anything like the RIAA to lobby to have laws banning cars. As to your second point, ideas are not things.

DRM is a different matter entirely. If I've paid for something, then i feel I'm entitled to do what I want with that file, whether that's burning a back-up DVD or putting it on a portable player or whatever. Restricting that stuff is absolutely poor practice, in my mind. But that's not what you were talking about before, you were talking about a company willingly putting their project up for free, and letting people donate if they want to. That system doesn't make sense for anybody whose goal is to make money. And film is a business just as much as it is an art form.

But why should you care that someone is doing that?  Mel still makes a living.  No one is harmed, right?

Well, I think someone is harmed by fraud, for a variety of reasons that should be obvious.

People are still buying her merch.  Her sales haven't dropped at all, and by her own admission it's a tiny, tiny number of people who do it. 

So I ask you again to articulate a defense for her (I already know why I'm against it).  If no one is harmed, if her sales aren't impeded, and if people who admire her work and can't afford one of her products but a cheaper version as well....why should she vigourously prevent people from doing that?