[j42]

I'm truly confused by your message, because your latter statement sounds as if you are in agreement?

No one (intelligent) is trying to make a moral argument for 'piracy' or media entitlement, but rather saying that there do exist circumstances where the letter of the law deserves to be ignored as it runs contradictory to the spirit.

The spirit of copyright law is to ensure rights-holders are fairly compensated, and the unfortunate confluence of many complex factors has precluded this.

Rights-holders are understandably scared of technology's ability to level the playing field (by increasing access and decreasing their exclusivity advantage), and thus far most have chosen the historically-impotent strategy of hardline enforcement over adapting services and creating new revenue streams. What bothers me is that they hold the artists out to the public and say "look at this poor starving fella," meanwhile no one has any idea that their new streaming-media licensing agreement entitles artists to ~2-5% of the total earnings generated.

I'm particularly sensitive to this issue because I work in ad-tech. People (myself ironically included) love ad blockers, and I'd argue it's for good reason. Unless the implicit contract between those monetizing and those consuming is respected, everyone loses in the arms race that follows. In our industry it's been adapt-or-die (create products that don't hurt the user's experience), and that's the way it should be. Thankfully nobody is lobbying in congress to stipulate how you may use your eyeballs.

Hollywood and Telecom have historically received unprecedented favoritism in this country, and it's possible we're all on the verge of paying the price. It will only continue to encroach upon our individual rights as society becomes increasingly digital.

I don't think anyone is entitled to anything for free, but I'm a realist and a pragmatist. I will reverse engineer and circumvent the things people say I can't until the day I die :)

[johncolanduoni]

My mistake! I thought by "piracy" being a corrective market force you meant "this has DRM, so I'll just not pay for it and download it somewhere else", not "this has DRM, but my [media player] isn't compatible, so I'll pay it and download it somewhere else." The second is a key part of my own content-consumption strategy ;)

> No one (intelligent) is trying to make a moral argument for 'piracy' or media entitlement

Alas, I've seen quite a few people in this thread make just that argument, and the unfortunate part is that many seem to be quite intelligent.

> I don't think anyone is entitled to anything for free, but I'm a realist and a pragmatist. I will reverse engineer and circumvent the things people say I can't until the day I die :)

Amen!