I hate bad and onerous regulations as much as the next person, but I'm always amazed by how ingrained the `regulations == bad` sentiment has become in society.
Regulations are the rules that make systems stable. Without them we'd just cycle between abuse and violent revolution...
There's a balance to be struck here, and we're always working on finding it. The US seems to tend to come down on the side of "legal until proven it shouldn't be" and the EU seems to lean a little more towards "prevent bad things" than the US.
Personally, I prefer the US version, and I'm glad I live in the US.
I'd love to understand why you think allowing people to do bad things is necessary for innovation and progress.
That's nonsense. Please explain, for example, how you think making it illegal to sell people's telco data in the 80s when we already knew this was happening would have prevented some good thing.
Preventing selling data would have only prevented a few rich sociopaths from getting a bit richer. They knew it was wrong, we knew it was wrong, the only reason it happened (and is still happening) was because people like you refuse to ever allow regulation, and people will likely prevent any regulation that does happen from having any teeth or a broad enough scope, so it will just keep happening. The "innovation" your ideology is incentivizing is just finding new loopholes to crawl through and screw people over.
I get it, the concept that regulation might have side effects makes sense if you talk about it only in general terms. But whenever I find myself arguing against this ideology, it's in a specific situation where your ideology is just being used to let sociopaths profit off of amoral behavior. Your ideology makes sense in theory, but over and over again it simply doesn't play out in practice.
I think home video is overall a net good.
EDIT:
Just to make it clear, I think I more agree with your point overall than the previous poster, I just felt the need to provide a counterexample.