But when you combine the current tax subsidies with the current interest rates, the fact that you pay up front for the battery is not really that big of a deal.
As I wrote in the comment above yours, I only paid $10K for a brand new EV. I paid cash, but even if I had financed my car, at today's rates it would have cost about $175/month for five years, and the drive train warranty is that long, and the battery warranty is eight years, so that's not really less economical than buying any new car.
Whenever anybody asks me about the energy cost to run my car, I explain that it's down in the noise; I pay $1.00 a week for unlimited charging, and even though I also only put about 5000 miles a year on the car, the penny per mile that the electricity costs is less than the cost of new tires.
Last August, the dealership was getting rid of the 2016 models. I gave my 2 year old one to my daughter, and got a brand new one for less than $17500 TT&L. After the federal $7500 tax credit, that came to less than $10K.
On the one hand, the federal tax credit is not refundable, which means that you have to owe at least that much to make use of it. On the other hand, the credit is baked into the price of most used electric EVs.
If you really don't have far to drive, and you're bigger on functionality than aesthetics, the i-MiEV is a great little car. Especially if you're a two-car family and have another vehicle for longer trips.
And here in the People's Republic of Austin, you can get subsidized electricity for it, as well. The electricity costs $50.00 / year, and the nearest all-you-can-eat charging buffet is less than half a mile from my house, so the city is subsidizing my limited exercise program. (To be fair, there is at least one true environmental reason why they do this; Austin is big enough, and the climate is such, that they have to worry about smog and ozone, and every little bit helps.)
You don't have to do anything; it just is.
Requiring people to share everything they create is not workable in any world I want to live in.
Well, your sig was, anyway.
Is god telling you that Dunbal's answer is wrong?
But if you would pay if you could, then the conclusion that "money spent on preventing piracy has a negative ROI" is still true -- perhaps they would make more money rearranging things so that you had a chance to acquire the content legally.
FWIW, I believe you, and I believe you are fairly representative, yet I can believe there are others for whom the original argument does actually apply.
A restated version of the argument is this: money spent on content protection (a) may coerce some pirates into paying for content, (b) will deter some pirates who wouldn't pay anyway and who will simply stop watching, thus giving your content less mindshare in the world and reducing your available free advertising, (c) will deter some who only pirate because they have no available legal means of acquiring the content, and (d) may actually encourage some to pirate because now it's a challenge.
This means that content protection is only viable if its cost exceeds the revenue gained from (a) by more than the lost revenue and lost opportunity costs from not dealing with (b), (c), and (d) properly.
You can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. - Al Capone