> You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. There are a number of ways I can view something against the wishe

> You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. There are a number of ways I can view something against the wishes of the copyright holder, thus reducing their monetary income. Are all of these wrong? You already mentioned the case of me describing something to other people. The NFL has a (probably unenforceable) disclaimer for the Super Bowl that says, "any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited." Buying used is often quite cheap. The creator doesn't see a dime. There's no guarantee that the seller of the used item won't use that money to buy something else used instead of new. Is that wrong? Is the creator entitled to a large market of new buyers? Format shifting is convenient for the customer but not the creator. For example, I bought Advance Wars on the Game Boy around 15 years ago. I've since backed up my copy (trivial to make your own backup with a flashcart). Now, Nintendo sells it on the Virtual Console for 8 bucks. If I play my backed up copy on a hacked Wii U, they're out 8 bucks. Is that wrong? Is the creator entitled to have every customer re-buy media for every new platform they want to consume on? The RIAA says that backing up a CD to an iPod is wrong: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-your-ipod-not-fair-use https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-... Buying in other countries is often cheaper. Look at textbooks for a prime example. When I was in college, I paid $20 for a legit copy of my physics textbook from India printed on poor-quality paper with a cheap binding; the content was exactly the same as the American textbook. Was that wrong? Some people even buy books in bulk in cheap countries and sell them in America for profit. Wiley sued a Thai guy for doing this, made it to the Supreme Court, and LOST. Are creators entitled to segment markets in this way? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-bookseller-defeated-a-publishing-giant-at-the-supreme-court/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-books... Renting something instead of buying it reduces profit. Did you know that video game rental is illegal in Japan? Should it be illegal in the US too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xuy5YALl0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xuy5YALl0 Lots of people watch stuff with a friend. I had a friend with HBO Go, and we had Game of Thrones night where three or four of us would watch it together. Should we have bought individual accounts? Some media is paid for by ads. I use an adblocker in my browser. My grandma mutes the TV and goes to the fridge during commercials. Is that wrong? Some works don't get published in foreign markets. Lots of old video games, TV shows, movies, and books are only officially released in one language, and are never translated by the creator for any number of reasons: lack of interest in the market, lack of money for translation, attachment to the "integrity" of the original work, etc. Unofficial translation violates copyright law, at least in the US. Say a work is only available in Japan, and in Japanese. Is it wrong for someone to translate it to English? Is it wrong for someone from the US to pirate the translated work, when that person would never have bought the work in its original translation and is region-locked from buying it anyway?