You are theoretically correct.
But there are some gray areas in that black-and-white statement, and they mainly lie in what the product here is.
The product here is not the specific movie or series, but the service it provides.
In fact, as a consumer, you pay a price tag every month for whatever content Netflix decides to offer, just like your TV subscription for regular TV channels.
Netflix makes no difference in terms of price or content between a subscription that streams 1 hour or 1000 hours per month.
However, there are practical limitations that prevent us from seeing everything on offer. Based on that fact, people choose. As for conventional TV channels, recording devices have been very common for 40 years.
In the digital age, streaming services and TV providers naturally try to prevent digital content from being encrypted or encrypted because it’s ‘too easy’ for consumers to flock to it.
For example, (personal case study) if you watched 3 episodes and a service suddenly stopped offering multiple seasons of a series, you actually paid for the entire series and (knowing the series would be removed) the series was copied using equipment or software that does not legally affect copy protection, someone else’s. I don’t know why it is illegal to use a copy.
Yes, there are laws that prevent copyrighted works from being shared without compensation to the owner. But it should be clear that those laws haven’t really moved with the times and that the rights holders (who haven’t moved with the times) have been given a charter to maintain their lucrative licensing business.
You might get an item for free because you think the price is too high. Only because of technical limitation and less chance of getting caught.
Whether you think it’s special or ethically responsible or morally right, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s been the state of affairs for years.
However, what most rights holders have done is complain and fight to keep things the way they are.
However, Netflix has jumped into that gap and given people (at first glance) exactly what they were looking for and has grown tremendously through that ‘rebellious’ behavior. However, as Netflix reached its peak in terms of potential subscribers and had competition from the old guard, they slowly but surely began to move away from the service. And in a few years they won’t be that rebellious youth, but they’ll happily join the old guard.
It has often been shown that ‘illegal downloaders’ would not necessarily have paid for the content if the download had not occurred. It has also been proven that especially for highly developed, rich countries it is more of a service need than a money problem and people are willing to pay for that service.
The music industry is a bad example because creators don’t earn anything from services like Spotify, but look at the popularity of Steam for games. and number of streaming service subscribers.
All they have to do is make it available and people pay.
These developments have been going on since the 1990s and I can’t understand companies that don’t realize that the market, even the world, is changing, that resists progress and doesn’t want to feel that artificial barriers are sticking. They don’t really care about the cultural aspect or the values that some people throw so hard at, but blur and make it increasingly clear that it’s all about the money.
Of course a company is all about money, but the (US) media industry is all about investors, investors, shareholders, studio owners, producers, directors, actors who all ‘want to make millions’, ‘need’ to make big. Percentages of withdrawal.
If you want to use the product, you have to pay.
Overall it’s good. But in all goods there must be a balance between quality, supply, demand and price.
The fact of the matter is that if that balance isn’t there, many people can easily turn to an illegal alternative that keeps that balance entirely in their favor.
“Award-winning beer geek. Extreme coffeeaholic. Introvert. Avid travel specialist. Hipster-friendly communicator.”