Like it or not (and clearly you don't), the money being made available is the product of IP, if the IP is violated then that money is less available.
Says who? Stupid threats like this one from the IP commission basically prevent governments from experimenting with IP-free economies, so you have little evidence to suggest they don't work. On the other hand, I could point to a few thousand years of human history prior to the Statute of Anne to suggest that they do.
Please explain again what it is that's being retransmitted publicly? I don't see where this is any different from simply renting television antennae.
I care about more than just myself.
Likewise. Which is why, even though I haven't watched a television program in over a year and have no intentions of doing so any time soon, I'm still arguing for what seems unquestionably to be a legal service.
Digital antennas don't require retransmission fees. Cable and satellite services do. I'm not sure why that's so hard to grasp.
And even, if in some crazy alternate universe, it did lead to the elimination of retransmission fees, then tough shit. It's the networks' fault for tailoring their current model exclusively to that system. It's not the place of government or courts to reinforce their business model, and watching over-the-air television through a digital antenna doesn't suddenly become "piracy" or "stealing" over it, either.
Why? Because he uses plain but aggressive language to voice his displeasure with major media, instead of a rambling, masturbatory treatise about the original purpose of copyright and the nuances of Section 513? I think there's more than enough room for both styles of posting here.
Then what are bitching about? Too much data is uploaded to proactively monitor and magically know which uses are infringing and which isn't. If you have a problem with that, then it *is* your problem, dipshit.