No. My point is that copyright infringement is only wrong in the eyes of the law, and not wrong inherently. Since copyright infringement isn't inherently wrong, the law can be redefined to adjust to changing realities.
> Seriously? So, if people choose to consume someone's work, yet avoid paying for it, then it's the content creators fault?
It's no one's "fault" as there's nothing wrong with not having a movie/tv industry. Human attention and efforts would simply shift and focus on something else that may or may not be better than movies/tv. I could be on the other side of the universe, and having received a stray signal of copyrighted work and consumed it, it would not affect the original content creator one bit.
Again, the content creator simply shouldn't do it if it doesn't pay. Who told them to do whatever it was that they were doing in the first place? If there is no consumer compensation then why do it? Either find a way to get people to compensate you, or do something else.
Movies and tv, while a critical part of current American culture, isn't a necessity of life and is actually a relatively recent development. People who make movies/tv shows aren't entitled to their jobs and their way of making money just like how I'm not entitled to be able to make money by leaving freshly squeezed lemonade outside with a sign that says "pay for it pleeze" while I sit on my lazy ass in the living room watching tv. It's my fault for not figuring out a better way of monetizing my lemonade (if people steal it) even if it is technically illegal to steal that lemonade. Who says creative content has to be protected. The industry only came to being because it was technologically easy to protect copyright but that's clearly not the case anymore. The sad state of affairs now is for the industry to find a cheap way to protect their revenues, or abandon it. It's reality and there's nothing inherently wrong with not being able to monetize content by selling licenses to view it. There are many ways to monetize these things and copyright just happened to be the most convenient way for decades.
It would be illogical, perhaps unethical even, for me to want more of that content while not supporting it in any way. However there's a difference between paying simply because I consumed something and paying because I want more of something. If I consume something and do not wish any more content to be produced of that nature, then I should have the right to not support the content creator, as whether or not I pay for the content will have no repercussions on the content creator except as to enable him to continue producing. They are not entitled to take my money automatically just because of "consumption" unless it is defined by law (which I have explained can and should be changed). Not paying for content is the public's way of saying that they do not support content creators. Therefore content creators should just stop and do something else.
