[posterboy]

The rather small claim of 500m probably accounts for that. I had a similar problem at a job: Eating the food that had to be thrown away was called stealing if not payed for. I argued I wouldn't pay that much under normal circumstances and just don't want to waste food, but the next day I found myself willing to pay in my shift for a snack at least while the food was still good, postponed it for a while because I didn't have the time and then even went the last stretch of the shift thinking the snack would be free if I just waited. It's the famous slippery slope.

On the other hand and more topical, after receiving a cease and desist letter and claims from a well known law firm I ignored them thinking I never directly payed for TV before and still indirectly do because advertisement is prised into the products I buy on the one hand, and because of bad availabilty I would have to pay a premium for DVDs which is not even in my budget nor my idea of my money's worth, but you might argue that I am just missing the incentive to work for it so there's indirect economic damage, as much as I hate to say that -- just playing devil's advocate. Ironically, if I had to work for it, I wouldn't have the time to binge watch as I did.

My biggest gripe is probably that media players are full of bugs, so it's unhygenic to load from unknown sources ...