Suppose (for hypothetical example) that Warner contracts with its distributors not to stream a "Batman" movie until it's been in theaters for a month.
That contract is not unlawful, nor is it immoral. It is not the government's job to block such contracts by declaring it lawful for you to pirate new stuff just because otherwise you would have to pay the theater or wait to see it.
Warner has rights to call the shots on how the "Batman" movie is distributed - in that limited sense they "own" it.
This is the polar opposite of ridiculous "download a car" arguments. I certainly think that public domain should kick in far earlier, that the media industry isn't in real trouble, that RIAA's tactics have made it a sort of copyright secret police against downloaders, etc. but you do not have a special right to pirate the latest thing just because it isn't going to be released fast enough for you unless you pay a premium.
> you do not have a special right to pirate the latest thing just because it isn't going to be released fast enough for you unless you pay a premium.
I am completely willing to pay a premium. There is currently no amount of money I can pay to watch (for example) the new Mission Impossible at home legally.
They do not have full rights to dictate how that film is distributed. This was Sussex out in the early 20th century, when Hollywood studios dictated which theaters could purchase rights to show their films.
Studios have to, by law, distribute their films to any theater willing to purchase the right to display their films. And they can't price it differently depending on which theater chain is purchasing the right to display.
For more on the fight between Hollywood and theaters, read 'The Master Switch.' I'm mobile or I'd link.
Why the same provision isn't extended to digital streaming yet........
I don't think it is a stretch to imagine a perfectly reasonable system of morals where "denying segments of the population access to modern culture" could be considered an immoral act.
That contract is not unlawful, nor is it immoral. It is not the government's job to block such contracts by declaring it lawful for you to pirate new stuff just because otherwise you would have to pay the theater or wait to see it.
Warner has rights to call the shots on how the "Batman" movie is distributed - in that limited sense they "own" it.
This is the polar opposite of ridiculous "download a car" arguments. I certainly think that public domain should kick in far earlier, that the media industry isn't in real trouble, that RIAA's tactics have made it a sort of copyright secret police against downloaders, etc. but you do not have a special right to pirate the latest thing just because it isn't going to be released fast enough for you unless you pay a premium.