> It's not entitlement to want to be able to participate in the dominant cultural trends (made dominant by consolidation and advertising).

That sounds pretty entitled to me.

Since when does one being able to talk about yesterday's Game of Thrones episode become some kind of divine "cultural right"?

How is it not being entitled to say, "I want to create something and allow everyone but you to buy it based on your location, and I expect you to respect that wish"?

It isn't.

Circumventing the content creators wishes just because you can do so without getting arrested, because you are too cheap, or some other nonsense excuse is entitled.

But why should people care? You've created it, you've released it, it's out there. Bits are copied for free. People usually are nice enough to pay you for it, but if you (or your middlemen) are not willing to give it to people who want to pay for it, then they'll find another way to see it.

Few things that are crucial to this:

- digital content is copyable for pretty much free by its very nature;

- we're talking about copying, not stealing

- we're talking about information, creative content, which kind of works differently than physical items

Expecting to create a piece of information, give it to some people and then still being able to retain exclusive control over that thing is what sounds entitled to me. It infringes on other peoples' right to process what reaches their senses and do whatever they like with it.

Intellectual property is an ugly hack created to make creative works compatible with market economy. The absurdity of that solution finally became visible as the marginal cost of copying the medium dropped to almost zero. Yes, we need the hack because many content creators need to get paid (and to believe they will get paid if they invest time in creating), but ultimately it's a problem with the economy. Ultimately, we should strive to fix it on the economy side, and get rid of the IP altogether.

Also, if we're comparing divine rights with each other then sorry, culture > capitalism. Humanity is better-off this way.

Your argument seems to be "it can be done so it must be right" and you view the rights of those who want to view something over those who put their time and work into it. Why do you think people should not get paid for their work?

Game of Thrones is not "information". It is not a basic human right. "Humanity" is no better off if you can watch it now or in a weeks time.

GoT, for better or worse, is a massive part of contemporary popular culture. Why do you think people should not be allowed to pay for it just because of where they were born? It's like saying, "Here's what you are expected to talk about and experience, and you're not invited because you're Ukrainian/British/Egyptian/etc."

I could agree if it was a case of being too cheap, but I am referring to when content providers refuse to release their content in an area. Shows coming out a year later in Australia for example. And just waiting for it to come out is not acceptable when the rest of the world is discussing it. People want to pay for the content but they are not given an option to, so I don't see how pirating is stemming from entitlement

> Since when does one being able to talk about yesterday's Game of Thrones episode become some kind of divine "cultural right"?

More like I want to pay to watch today's Game of Thrones and I don't see why I'm not able to do so.