&gt;Because they feel entitled to the content<p>&gt;Its simple entitlement<p>&gt;they feel entitled to watch<p>You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.<p>&gt;why do you feel entitled to consume content that you didn&#x27;t create, in the first place?<p>Because it has been published, therefore it is public.  &#x27;Publish&#x27; is literally a verb that means &#x27;to make available to the public&#x27;.  And &#x27;public&#x27; is literally an adjective that means &#x27;open to or shared by all people&#x27;.  Of course people have a right to access public things.  Why would you feel otherwise?  Do you feel guilty when you go to a public park because you didn&#x27;t create the land?  Do you feel the urge to surrender yourself to the police because you walked on a public sidewalk that you didn&#x27;t create?<p>Copyright grants special privileges to an author so that they can be compensated for their work, in hopes that this will encourage people to publish things.  If you refuse to use your privileges, that&#x27;s your choice, you decided not to get paid.  The public <i>is</i> still entitled to keep the gift that you gave them.<p>Where it gets ugly is that copyright declares that copying or transmitting something (even something already public) is itself an act of publication, and only the author is allowed to determine who may republish their work for awhile.  So redistributing without permission is not allowed.  But it has been published and therefore the public <i>does</i> still have a right to access it if it is available, they just don&#x27;t have the right to republish it.<p>Which leads to the issue here.  What is the correct result if something is public, and the public has every right to access it, but can&#x27;t exercise that right because it&#x27;s not available?  In theory, the author should take advantage of their copyright privileges to get some money from the public in exchange for access.  That would be a win-win, leaving everybody happy!<p>In the past, that could be difficult due to printing and shipping and international trade difficulties and various other legitimate problems.  But today&#x27;s tech makes it relatively trivial, cheap, and convenient to sell digital files online globally.  So if the author chooses not to do so, then <i>in the eyes of the public</i>, the author has opted out of their copyright privilege, they have forfeited.  It is a public thing that should be open to free access, since the author has chosen not to accept payment for access.  Of course, that&#x27;s not what the law says yet, but that&#x27;s already what people believe is correct, reasonable, and ethical.<p>Authors who attempt to suppress access to public things, or make it unreasonably difficult and expensive to do so, or bully people who try to access them, are in the wrong, and they will lose eventually.  That is an unethical and immoral stance, and it is an abuse of copyright, not in keeping with its intent.