Part of the copyright provision is that you are prevented from importing goods which are being sold first-hand in the US by a licensee or manufacturer. This has historically been applied to books, movies, and music. More recently to games. But thanks to this court ruling it now applies to anything with a copyrighted logo.

Mind you, last I checked logos and their like are the domain of trademarks. How they got a copyright for something that should, by all rights, be a trademark is something that seems to be missing from this conversation.

You see, the problem with this attitude is that our culture doesn't belong to just those with money. It belongs to everyone. That's the point of having a shared culture in the first place. By saying that those who want to see the latest and greatest in concert have to pay up, or as you so quaintly put it, "...change their lot in life...", you have essentially created a division that only artificially exists. That artificial division then goes on to create ones which cause the real problems.

This is not to say there isn't an issue with the way shows and concerts are priced. There obviously is if entire industries are created around little pieces of paper being traded for ever greater amounts of money. The solution, however, is not cutting people out of the cultural conversation and telling them that they need to STFU and to go away if they don't have the funds to participate.

If you do nothing more than passively watch, then yes, it is a very negative thing. That means the artwork hasn't touched you. It has failed to be art.

If it otherwise inspires you to create, discuss, or otherwise think about the world around then no, that is not passive and, in IMHO is the point of art.

That aside. I hate that word used in this context. I "consume" nothing when I listen to music, see artwork, or watch a file. All of those things are left in their previous state, not changed in the least. It's lazy phrasing.

You're off by a factor of a thousand.

Stop things like this from working?