The major downside to this is promoting the idea that an https connection is "secure", because especially when it comes to https, there are so many different attacks to level against both an end user and a host that we'd be better using a risk grading system.
A security feature does not have to be perfect to provide value. The user is still significantly more protected with HTTPS than with HTTP.
If a 3rd party already has control over your traffic flows where they can inject content then you are already fucked, encryption or not.
That is not true.
Not that the movie, the game, the song, the whatever was bad. Oh, far from it. There's great movies, songs, games and whatever else out there. I just cannot agree with the licensing terms. Dear copyright industry (I used to call you content industry, but let's call a spade a spade and be honest here, your business focus is copyright, not content anymore): A contract needs two parties agreeing on it. And I simply cannot agree to your conditions, while you're unwilling to offer conditions that I could agree with. In other words, no sale will take place here.
Fair argument, but please take care of your part too, to respect the license agreement. The artist didn't intend it to free distribution. You said "a contract needs two parties agreeing on it". If you are the party not agreeing, stay away from that content. Don't buy that media, but don't pirate that either. Use entertainment that is licensed in other terms. Otherwise you are sending a contradictory message.
Analogy: if you pirate the content, it's like not putting up with a woman's terms, but still wanting her so badly that you rape her.