A license can clearly be written such that the law interprets it as the right to view content on a particular medium/format for as long as that is practical.
It can be, but often isn't, and wasn't if we go back in history looking at VHS and DVDs (when they first came out). And I don't hand over the money anymore... I actually buy very little content anymore because of it.
This isn't something important like Health Care or Jobs.
I agree... I wasn't justifying anything illegal. That people violate IP laws because they don't want to pay for their entertainment actually really irks me, and I complain about it all the time. At the same time, it also pisses me off that the honest consumers are the ones that get the most limited flexibility, that get saddled with DRM, and also the "privilege" of paying for it - after all, they are passing the costs of the technology - including licensing the DRM technology - onto us.
Right... I'm actually against IP infringement of any kind - it's all just entertainment, nobody "owes" you a damn thing, while at the same time I have no patience for the exaggerated claims of the industry, or the fact that only the honest paying customers (like me) are the ones saddled with DRM (and I do circumvent it in some cases, so that I can watch what I've legally purchased on my tablet)
However, the problem you describe is that there's a group of people with X amount of entertainment dollars, they spend it on one thing... then think they're entitled to the other things, also. I have a serious problem with people that think that mentality is somehow justified. None of us are entitled to games or songs or movies for free. If you do don't want to pay what's being asked, don't watch.
"Beware of programmers carrying screwdrivers." -- Chip Salzenberg