Yes, this is the basis of our society. I work for money to buy things, mostly from corporations. There's nothing nefarious about that.
I find it really hard to believe that paying for content is unethical.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/10/25...
A small example of the nefarious behaviour you support by paying for Netflix.
> Yes, this is the basis of our society. I work for money to buy things, mostly from corporations
Intellectual Property is by definition "non-excludable", which means my having access to some information does not exclude you from having access to the same information, unlike land or food or clothing. It is very different from these, and using your Government to violate the sovereignty of other nations and individuals to impose your warped up notions of property is deeply unethical.
Both are obviously false, but I think that was the intend (argument by confusion?).
Your money isn't going to the people who created the content. It is going to cartels that have no interests in common with you, and have massive lobbying power in order to force you to download malware and restrict the access of information from you.
I wasn't 'lobbied' or forced to install 'malware'. I'm aware of what's going on (I too have heard of R.M.S.!) and I made a conscious decision to subscribe to such services.
To elaborate - we absolutely have something in common. These 'cartels' (businesses) don't give a flying fuck about DRM, they just want to be able to sell things. Often, they make good things that I want to buy. Good set of interests to have in common.
At the CS reception he told a retired professor to switch banks and just not tell his wife because the bank didn't support a FOSS browser—while eating the dandruff in his hair.
Later, at the wider talk, he called our IT department fascists for requiring authentication to join the Wifi network, then put a halo on his head, proclaimed himself the Jesus Christ of software and tried to auction off a stuffed gnu to a dead silent crowd.
Good times.
Patently false and easily verifiable.
Media is an investment, which is why were getting lots of "low creativity" movies, re-boots, extended franchises, sequels, etc.. People will risk money for art, but investors don't want to risk anything: some franchises can basically churn out anything and be sure to make a huge profit (which Hollywood accountants can spin as a loss by charging millions for IPR).
I think the spirit of the former comment is "when a movie makes $$$ profit how much of that is going to the colourist, or the make-up artist, the IT support, the animation assistants, ... all people essential to the movie. Versus how much goes to investors whose only part is being already rich?".
The creators get wages, but how many of the creators get profits, and how often is it more than simple investors get?
There are certainly reasons for not liking DRM, but "freedom to pirate" seems like a pretty poor one.
You are right about investors retreating to "safe low creativity", especially in times of downturn. Traditional movie theaters are in decline, so of course traditional cinema is playing it safe for now with reboots and sequels. Netflix, on the other hand, is more awash in investor cash... so at the moment, they are able to take greater risks.
As far as cutting out the "investor" side goes, it would be interesting to see a content host that is explicitly non-profit. Beyond major content hosts, I think the Soundclouds / Bandcamps / Patreons etc. definitely have their place, and have been helpful for some not-so-commercial / hobbyist artists. Even these platforms however seem to struggle with the conflict between making a profit vs serving the artistic community sometimes.