"censorship" by dominant platforms (technically not censorship,
Censorship is defined by the action, not who does it - that merely dictates acceptability, lack thereof, etc.
They don't really care about experiencing the concert.
Wouldn't that, however, assume there being only one way to "experience" a concert, or other event? Considering how little work it takes to use certain recording mediums, you can just aim, while focusing your eyes on the show, and listening/looking at the visuals, so even if there were one way of "experiencing" it, you could still theoretically do it. (ALL strictly IMO, of course).
No, you've failed to account for theft of intellectual property.
You mean a crime that doesn't yet, to my knowledge, actually exist, and seems to only be used by the misinformed, and the intellectually lazy instead of copyright infringement? Where are the people who have been prosecuted for this "theft of IP" law that supposedly exists, versus copyright/patent/trademark infringement, etc? Surely, you can demonstrate it, since you're so sure it exists as a legal tort and/or crime, and is more appropriate than the IP laws that exist in application.
Ha. When people are prosecuted for that exact crime, and not another being mislabeled, OK, but until then, IMO this is BS.
Your arguments are worth nothing if you won't put your name to them.
Your arguments are worth nothing if they fail to use some sort of basic reasoning. (hint: Not putting a name to something in of itself doesn't affect the quality or lack thereof of an argument.)
Stupid, potentially sensitive question: How many of the vulnerabilities, do you think (if it can be ascertained) came from companies who outsourced their work to India-based companies?
It has just been discovered that research causes cancer in rats.