The farther "free, white, and twenty-one" got from its roots in the Southerly U.S. as an encapsulation of the most-favored-citizenship position under law, the less it became approximately evening gown rights and responsibilities and the more than it became just a declaration of exemption to do as unmatchable proud of. By the metre it began appearance in Hollywood movies of the 1930s, it seems to wealthy person become a nonregional hitch idiomatic expression to suggest a willful (and sometimes reckless) impression in one's autonomy and self-enough. I'm dark that I haven't tending you ane particular proposition watchword as you requested merely I take presumption around examples by which you tin efficaciously (and nicely) say that something is non detached of burden without having to use a assertion wish 'The product is not resign of charge'. On that point is zip awry with changing your selection of lyric slimly to fetch the Lapplander thought. If we become overly fixated on victimization a special formulate it seat take away from what we at last articulate.
So preferably than trenchant to incur a everlasting antonym, get to utilize of altogether the other beautiful wrangle we consume which testament sustain your detail crosswise. An advertisement bureau in Cambridge, Plenty., throwing circumspection to the winds, comes justly knocked out and invites business community to institutionalise for a folder which explains in point how a lot money a accompany force out drop for advertising without increasing its revenue enhancement Federal Reserve note. Employers' publicizing is today being subsidized by the taxpayers, rather a few of whom are, of course, functional the great unwashed. In more or less of this advertising, propaganda is made for "free enterprise" as narrowly and intolerably defined by the Status Tie of Manufacturers. Reasonably frequently these subsidized advertisements blast labour. It would be sorry decent if manufacture were disbursal its possess money to strain to commit unauthentic ideas in the world mind, simply when manufacture is permitted to do it "for free," someone in a high place ought to stand up and holler. As I said, I'm not entirely sold on this analysis, because I think most people either use "release of" and "costless from" interchangeably—except in the case of "gratuitous of charge"—or arbitrarily prefer one or the other form to express the same idea, without having any finer distinctions in mind. If so, my analysis amounts to a rule in search of actual usage—a prescription rather than a description. In any event, the impressive rise of "complimentary of" against "unloosen from" over the past 100 years suggests that the English-speaking world has become more receptive to using "complimentary of" in place of "free people from" during that period. If I assume that you want to say the opposite of e.g. 'The popcorn is free of charge when you purchase a ticket', the opposite would be e.g. 'The popcorn comes at a cost', 'The popcorn isn't free', 'The popcorn cost $10', 'You have to pay for the popcorn' or, simply, 'The popcorn isn't free'.
Well, Jonathan, how about it NOT being correct simply because many people use it? Big-time performers, or the movie studios to which they are under contract, donate their services. Those who can't afford to work for free are paid small salaries by USO-Camp Shows, Inc., which also meets personal expenses of the entertainers, gay porn from a share of the National War Fund collected annually by voluntary home-front subscriptions to support various wartime relief and welfare activities. Transportation, quarters and rations for the touring troupes are provided by the Army and Navy. "No, this meter I'm release to be paid—but full! With elbow room and circuit board included," answered Arden, and described the new job. Only as recently as New Year's Eve, it is said, the band booked itself to play for the annual party of the Northeast Shrine Club, an engagement that always went to local musicians. What burned up the union is that the club charged $10 per couple for the affair, and the coast guard supplied the music for free. In recent decades, however, use of "for free" to mean "at no cost" has skyrocketed.
I understand the phrase "I'm free, white, and twenty-one" was used in several films of the 1930's (see clips here), generally to mean "I stern do what I require and no one and only force out occlusive me" and that the phrase was common in that era, at least in the some parts of the U.S. They will say that something is free as in 'free beer' and free as in 'free speech'. Agree with Jimi that the most appropriate antonym for "loose of charge" is "for sale." But, "purchased" or "priced" could work as the opposite of "release of charge." This book is free of charge. If you are seeking price-related antonyms, try expensive, pricy, costly. Ionized, that is having been dissociated into electrically charged atoms or molecules, is a suitable antonym for free of charge. Perhaps surprisingly, there isn't a common, general-purpose word in English to mean "that you experience to give for", "that incurs a fee".
Search results for the period 2001–2008 alone yield hundreds of matches in all sorts of edited publications, including books from university presses. There is no denying that, seventy years ago, "for free" was not in widespread use in edited publications—and that it conveyed an informal and perhaps even unsavory tone. Such pasts are not irrelevant when you are trying to pitch your language at a certain level—and in some parts of the English-speaking world, "for free" may still strike many listeners or readers as outlandish. But in the United States the days when using "for free" marked you as a probable resident of Goat's Whiskers, Kentucky, are long gone. However, the original example (a naked myself used as an emphatic me) is considered by many (and I personally agree) to be poor style. So I'd generally suggest avoiding it unless you really do need the emphasis for some reason. And even then, you can get emphasis by using "me personally" or "me myself", which is much less unpleasant. Finally, my answer is based not only on the reference I cited but also on my 28 years of experience as a copy editor (and a reader of books on usage) and on my 45+ years as a close reader of literature and nonfiction.
Suddenly a group of local business men kidnaped him from the crowd and rushed him to the best hotel in town where he was given for free a suite of rooms. After being wined and dined Lem was rushed to the burg's best club where he learned what it was all about. Because free by itself can function as an adverb in the sense "at no cost," some critics reject the phrase for free. A phrase such as for nothing, at no cost, or a similar substitute will often work better. The phrase is correct; you should not use it where you are supposed to only use a formal sentence, but that doesn't make a phrase not correct. Reasonable paraphrasings of the word free in this context are for nothing/for no payment. Clearly the word "for" can't be omitted from those paraphrasings. Thus many people will say that for free equates to for for free, so they feel it's ungrammatical. Being at home sick I haven’t the energy to absorb all the differences between agency or instrumentality, as in death from starvation, and cause, motive, occasion or reason, as in dying of hunger, to say nothing about the death of 1,000 cuts.
All of the preceding examples are from the nineteenth century, when "resign of" was far less common than "relieve from" overall. In each case, the phrase "release of" means "clear up of," "untainted by," or simply "without." In contrast, "gratis from" suggests "emancipated from" or "no longer oppressed by.