You are not entitled to any movies or television shows at any quality at all because it's not your IP. If someone wants to shoot a movie and then lock it in a vault, never to be seen by anyone, Prince-style, that is their right. If they want to change it to remove and permanently memory-hole offensive elements, that is their right. If they want to release it only in certain formats, up to and including theatrical-only releases, that is their right. Because they own the copyright and hence, control over how the work is distributed and exhibited.
So take what they offer you or leave it. Anything else is a violation of the law.
I don't like the idea of running my life within the confines of IP law of another country especially considering that IP law is wholly moulded by giant corporations like Disney and not based on anything that actually makes sense for the modern provider/consumer digital world.
And breaking a law I don't agree with definitely won't keep me up at night, in fact if they catch me and force me to pay for all the content I downloaded it will still end up being a more convenient experience as I am very willing to pay in the first place.
> Disability advocates have long expressed concern that copyright law can impede the adaptation of works into formats functional for people with disabilities when copyright holders fail to publish works in accessible formats, such as Braille, or allow others to do so. To resolve that problem, many countries have adopted copyright exceptions and limitations allowing authorized not-for-profit organizations to produce and distribute accessible works to persons with disabilities.
> Problems of translation and linguistic barriers likewise are of concern for speakers of non-dominant languages. Copyright regimes are formally neutral regarding the language of a work. In practice, however, the results are widely disparate, as copyright protection offers little financial incentive to write and publish in most of the world’s languages. People able to speak English, French or Spanish can select reading material from millions of books; however, those unable to speak a globally used language may enjoy access to very few. The vastly unequal distribution of published literary works across languages poses a significant barrier to the right to take part in cultural life for linguistic communities not offering a major publishing market. The issue is not limited to reading for pleasure; that also impacts the ability to pursue education and knowledge, take part in debates on social and political issues and earn a livelihood as a writer.
I disagree with your statement, because IP is a human construct that was created in order to help creators profit from their works so they can create more, and of higher quality works.
It is a very expensive construct, both in public resources (e.g to create, protect, and enforce the law), and towards humanity's progress (i.e free access to books, inventions, etc would benefit the planet).
So for creators to get the benefits of the letter of the IP law, they should respect the spirit of the law, which is to give gated access to everyone.
Fair use says you're often entitled to parts of IP-protected works for the purposes of education, exposition, parody, reverse engineering, the historical record, etc.
A journalist's right to fair use of IP is often hampered by the platforms the IP is distributed under. If Google had their way, journalists wouldn't be able to use yt-dlp, or other clients, to include clips from content published on YouTube in their reporting.
This "violation of the law" is similar to speeding on a deserted highway: the law was broken, but no harm was done to anyone and there is no way to even check if the law was broken.
We are arguing if the law should work that way, not if it already does or not.
And personally, I don't think it should. The purpose of copyright law is to make it economically viable to publish creative works. Ashcanning your own work very much goes against the copyright bargain, but we don't have any legal provision to counteract it yet.
> So take what they offer you or leave it. Anything else is a violation of the law.
Just because it's legal for companies to screw you over doesn't make it right or desirable. If they force us to work outside of the law to protect ourselves and our right to access and make use of our own history and culture that's what we'll do.
So take what they offer you or leave it. Anything else is a violation of the law.