I do that, too

Right? "I don't like what you stand for or your views on certain topics, but I do want to enjoy the product you make, so I feel justified in not compensating you for partaking in the services you provide."

Can I stiff my Uber driver if I don't agree with their politics? If I don't like their car? Can my boss not pay me for developing software if I didn't laugh enough at his jokes?

We find it easy to say "no" in those cases. But because media piracy is pretty easy to do and pretty difficult to punish, we simply stop caring.

I agree with your core concept, but I don't think those analogies are fair.

TV and movies are part of pop culture and depending on your circle can be critical to have knowledge on for social reasons. If something is unavailable to you due to means outside of your control (licensing, internet speed, accessibility of UI, etc) then there's more justification to that than not paying your Uber driver based on politics.

>TV and movies are part of pop culture and depending on your circle can be critical to have knowledge on for social reasons. If something is unavailable to you due to means outside of your control (licensing, internet speed, accessibility of UI, etc) then there's more justification to that than not paying your Uber driver based on politics.

TV and movies are "critical" because... you want to partake in watercooler banter? I'm not sure how that's more convincing than uber being "critical" because you need it to get to work on time, or to get home safely after drinking.

> Can I stiff my Uber driver if I don't agree with their politics?

That would be an example of the opposite. Uber is pretty much a tracker (peer-to-peer platform) for unlicensed taxis.

Actually, at least in the UK, Ubers are licensed by local councils. They have all sorts of stupid restrictions like if they drive someone to another city they cannot pick up any passengers there so they have to drive back empty even if a customer could have booked the journey. This is Enforced, DRM style, by the app. The same rule exists for local private hire companies but they can ignore it when it makes sense to.

That would be a more principled stand, ye. But the conglomerates capture so much culture, such that it would be kinda peaty culture wise to skip mainstream content.

If the objection is that their claim to ownership is not legitimate due to harms done along the way, then refusing to access the media on those grounds would mean participating in the very thing you're trying to object to.

That's no way to disobey.