From a different prospective, he's willing to pay for content in his area. By refusing Netflix the rights to sell the content in his area, the rights holders a

From a different prospective, he's willing to pay for content in his area. By refusing Netflix the rights to sell the content in his area, the rights holders are indirectly refusing to sell him the content. He offered them the money, but now it goes to someone else. By showing the money is there in his market, he does encourage the rights holders to allow Netflix to sell in his market. I understand other entities likely hold the rights in his area than the ones allowing Netflix to sell content in the US. Analogies only go so far, but it's more like he tried to pay for a Hilton room in Elbonia, and Hilton said "No f'ing way we allow franchises in Elbonia", so he paid for a Motel6 and then went and slept for free in an abandoned building where someone had illegally written Hilton above the door. Yes, Hilton's intellectual property rights are being violated, but he's not incurring direct costs upon Hilton, and he did give first offer to Hilton. Hilton is losing opportunity cost, but it's hard to blame the person who tried to pay them.