Someone posted a really good article on the being right vs being pragmatic - about it being a service problem as opposed to an ethical one, or something like that. It'd be really handy if someone could post it.
To me the problem is that they cannot control distribution. So one solution could be baking adverts into the tv/movie. Has the obvious flaw of poisoning art with advertising, but if done well might work?
What does everyone else see as the pragmatic solution?
My ideal pragmatic solution would be a platform (or two, or five) that acts like a dumb pipe for content providers to license their content to, and receive some form of compensation every time it is watched, prorated into the amount of the episode/movie is actually watched.
However, given the difficult licensing issues found for every country, that's probably not going to happen any time soon.
Obviously, the cable/satellite/telco video companies of the world don't want to get disintermediated here; so most of them have been building IP video platforms for the last few years. It will still likely require a cable video subscription (though maybe with a slight discount as you won't need to rent a cable box.)
That's why cable companies bundle channels together instead of letting you pick and choose the ones you want.
If it wasn't for this, the industry would become even more risk-averse, and we would see a lot less diversity of content, or risky unproven ventures.
In the end I believe this would be a net loss to everyone.
Basically, make a product that can actually compete with the solutions that piracy offers, from a technical and experience perspective, then price it at what people are prepared to pay.
Or you will die.
I'd be happy to trade in subscriptions to Usenet et all if there was something even several times the price of it if I knew my money was going to the authors (and even the middlemen that get it to happen, providing they are actually providing something good as opposed to being greedy and backwards).
The old business model doesn't work.
You might legally have the right of way. Pragmatically however, you need to get out of the way of the moving car.
Legally should should walk to the crossing at the end of the block. But pragmatically you could just run across the road during a lull of traffic.
[0] I could be completely wrong, and given the international audience I am probable both right and wrong.
[1] http://peds.org/issues/respect-pedestrians/pedestrian_right_...
In Toronto you can more or less cross where you want, as long as you're not interfering with lawful traffic. If you step in front of a car moving at the speed limit and get hit, it's your fault. If you make a car slow down even a little bit to avoid hitting you, you're at fault.
If there's a big enough gap that no cars have to slow down as you cross, you're good to go!