Yeah, joking aside, you don't actually have an answer though do you?
You've already said yourself that you download stuff you wouldn't buy, so no matter how angry he gets that someone is sharing his stuff via torrents or whatever, it still doesn't mean that people who would otherwise have bought his stuff are getting it for free. They are just as likely to be downloading it and going "this is shit".
(Bazongaloid, Wed 3 Oct 2012, 15:58, 2 replies, latest was 13 years ago)

Perhaps he should release less shit music?

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Wed 3 Oct 2012, 16:00, Reply)

I would if I were him.
I'd release stuff that people actually wanted to buy.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 3 Oct 2012, 16:01, Reply)

I'm ambivalent about it.
Just saying that someone who's livelihood depends on selling downloads views the illegal distribution of hid products as theft. He's not a lawyer, neither am I and neither are you. But he gets angry when he finds that his copyright has been violated. So crime, yes, theft, questionable. There needs to be a sale in the first place, so the uploader breaks the terms of use. That's illegal, but not theft.

Semantics semantics semantic Patel.
(dozers, do fuck off ur a nob m8, Wed 3 Oct 2012, 16:03, Reply)

You've already said this
but the issue is that you started saying this "He regularly finds tracks of his on torrent sites, which means that these are genuine instances of torrents equating to lost sales" but as I've said, this is an incorrect statement.

And he can view the copyright infringement as theft all he likes, much like monty, but the fact that I am not a lawyer makes no difference to the fact that he is wrong.
(Bazongaloid, Wed 3 Oct 2012, 16:07, Reply)

His friend is an idiot.
Partially for this, but mainly for being friends with Dozer
(PsychoChomp, Wed 3 Oct 2012, 16:15, Reply)