>The fact that under a first-sale model... I still don't see why this entitles consumers to the content on their own terms. >Really? A car has fixed, very hig

>The fact that under a first-sale model... I still don't see why this entitles consumers to the content on their own terms. >Really? A car has fixed, very high costs per item. Downloading from a streaming site has zero costs for the studio... Well, my question was from a moral standpoint. Why is it morally different from stealing a car? Still, it's interesting to see the responses. Some, including the comment at which my original reply was aimed) say it doesn't matter what the producers' expenses are. It's their problem. But, here you've gone to lengths to explore the economic mechanics irrespective of the moral question. The thing is that even if your economic analysis is perfect, it still avoids the question: what in any of this gives the consumer the right to wholly disregard the producer's economic considerations, analyze them to determine whether the producer is entitled to payment, or otherwise do anything other than decide whether to obtain the product by buying it or doing without? >...then trying to complain that some people just listen to the concert from outside the fence. But, if the people outside the fence were trespassing or were otherwise informed that they should buy a ticket, then the complaints would be no less valid.