[Poohbah]

what is the actual cost to the downloader?

Effectively nil--your economic analysis presumes that the downloader would not use his computer and ISP connection for other purposes if the d/ls were not available.

Would the RIAA be happy with a "tax" on all isp subscriptions? a 5 cent isp RIAA tax? Nope, why? because its about control.

Would you be satisfied with someone squatting in your house, against your wishes, even if the government paid you some stipend? Nope. Why? Because it's all about control. You're just being SELFISH, not housing with the less fortunate! How DARE you assert any property rights you think you're entitled to? </parody of your rant>

[longtermmemmory]

there is no effectivly nil. The cost of making a cassette tape from a record is effectivly nill but people do not do it like they once did. CDR's have to be bought, trips to the store have to be made, serching the database has to be done. It may be more cost effective for us to just buy rather than sift through garbage files but a teenager wil even more limited resources has a much higher nuisance threshold. The fact an ISP may or may not be used for something else is besides the point. Its a cost. (the "something" else was part of the original betamax case where the industry did not want you to be able to record and watch something else)

I am attempting to show the direction of the way what is left of the industry can direct their energies to make money.

Your squater example makes no sense. If you have a cell phone, isp, beer, or pay for gasoline, you have paid all sorts of absurd add on taxes. The RIAA killed internet radio with the same "tax".

[Not Insane]

Your analogies are all flawed in the same way - they try to relate the virtual to the physical.

One last time: The squatters are not in YOUR house. They are in a COPY of your house.