> especially given how mediocre 95% of production has been in recent years
Okay, then don’t watch it. If you’re watching it, though, you should pay for it. Your logic is the equivalent of going out to restaurants to eat, and then not paying because “restaurants aren’t good these days.”
It's probably closer to having to pay a monthly subscription fee to eat at the restaurant. And you actually have to get six different subscriptions at different restaurants because each one has a different rotating menu. And you're not allowed to share your food with your friends because they don't live with you -- they each need their own subscription. And no to-go boxes, you gotta eat it right there at the restaurant since you're only allowed to eat the food while you have an active subscription, you know, just in case you cancel the subscription to that restaurant or try to share the food with your friends who don't have an active subscription.
Also, you can't figure out what to eat because instead of being indexed by nutrition information or by whether it contains potential allergens it's always indexed at the top level by subscription so you have to do a little inner join there on your napkin before you can tell your kid what their options are.
The analogy doesn't hold because piracy in that scenario would be going to one of those subscription-based restaurants and getting their food but not paying. We go back full circle to the comment you were replying to.
You could argue piracy is going to the chef's place and eating their food before it gets to the restaurant for distribution, now the chef is angry too.
Okay, then don’t watch it. If you’re watching it, though, you should pay for it. Your logic is the equivalent of going out to restaurants to eat, and then not paying because “restaurants aren’t good these days.”