Or that the company that funded the video's production wants some assurance that a subscriber won't just tee a rental into a capture program and distribute it without charge to the public.
That's OK. Some clever person will have already figured it out for me. I don't know if they strip HDCP-protection from video and capture the stream, read it out of memory while decoding, decrypt DVR video files or what, but I've no video that I've ever looked for was actually protected by restrictive streaming requirements.
If the executives of a production company feel assurance that their stream can't be ripped in one way or another, then they're living in a fool's paradise.
Lose your distaste.
I'm sure that there are things in the world that you find distasteful as well, and it would be just as effective if an anonymous internet poster said to"lose your distaste" for those things. It may happen through long exposure and desensitization, but it ain't gonna be purely by your say-so.
Photography isn't a crime. Neither is staring intensely at someone and refusing to stop if they're clearly uncomfortable or ask you to. That doesn't mean that it's not a dick move.
because you don't have a legal leg to stand on
Why would that be the first thing that comes to mind? I'm not planning on suing someone for recording me. That would be pointless. Just because I have to put up with something to take part in society doesn't mean that I have to like it (or that I wouldn't appreciate places that share my viewpoint on the matter).
"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs