For the same reason they don’t stock their bar with beer stolen from the brewery?
If someone misused GPL, there’d be outrage, if a bar steals soccer, there is sympathy? If open source people expect (and enforce) licensing for software, how is it consistent that a bar owner is reselling soccer content (i.e. using it to attract customers,) is justified? The idea that people wouldn’t watch it otherwise is ridiculous — they’d seek out a bar that has it. So in this case, this is a direct loss of revenue to the producer of the content.
What's unjustifiable is overcharging for essential music, books, and video, some of which is old, because of the ridiculous extensions on the copyright terms. Sometimes the artists have said they understand why people who can't afford it download their stuff, and can't blame them. Also unjustifiable is how the media conglomerates exploit the artists.
That's why we use the term copyright infringement.
Similiar to how he pays for cable and everyone at the bar can see it on all of their tvs.
I understand the soccer people want more money. But cost to create and produce is paid for by the subscription already or they couldn't afford to offer the service in the first place. The hardship doesn't exist on the producer's side. We could debate whether the producer should be able to extract as much money as possible on bar owners holding them up to Oracle type liceases. It reminds me of the music industry clamping down on people singing Happy Birthday.
That logic only holds if the majority of the consumers are paying though.
If I walk into a bar I may get a partial view of a screen / sometimes sound. That isn't worth the cost of a monthly subcription. Pro rated if the account is worth 10 dollars a month I would expect the actual usage to be around 10 cents per person. Not to discount the added ad revenue/tsheet sales/increased individual subscriptions/increased ticket buying.
It's hard to make the case that this revenue is critical to the survival of the game. I would say the opposite is true, the more bars offering the game the bigger and more valuable the game becomes. It's free advertising and if you could get my local little league into all of these bars on single subscriptions I would be the next unicorn.
This is also why broadcasters have gotten away without much innovation in the industry when compared to what’s happening in other equivalent sectors.
Edit: Or at least not much innovation outside of rights management. Ironically they’ve spent more time and energy innovating ways to stop people accessing content than ways of improving their respective services.
This obviously doesn't justify piracy but it does show how how resistant to change the media industry have become.
"Is it ok for a business to pirate another business's sports video to attract customers for game day profits?"
is a different moral question to:
"Is it ok for an individual to pirate a song because it's not available as FLACC/without using always online garbage electron app/ abusive DRM/unethical practices of rights holder?"
We already have legal terms for information that is property, namely intellectual property, the theft of which is routinely prosecuted (regardless of ideological beliefs on the nature of information).
Calling it stealing is at least imprecise. I think it's also inaccurate.