Would it benefit the public to completely do away with the other 1%? How could something like The Amazing Digital Circus have been produced purely on a hobby budget?

How does the producer of a video go about seeding "word of mouth" and getting onto "curated lists"?

Yes, by excluding a lot of viewers who lack an IP address that can accept inbound TCP connections, unless I'm missing something. It also excludes viewers who have an iPhone or iPad and don't have a Mac with which to build and ad-hoc sign an app because Apple has reportedly banned BitTorrent clients from the App Store.

And how might that have been? I might be misremembering, but this was my recollection:

1. Movie studios and TV channels funded production of videos to be viewed by the public. Very few pitches got funded.
2. Movie studios promoted upcoming and newly released movies through television advertising, and TV channels promoted shows to the channel's own viewers.
3. Movies were paywalled, and TV was ad-supported (in the case of broadcast) or behind the combination of ads and a paywall (in the case of cable).

Also, before YouTube, most end-user devices on the Internet had an IP address, even if dynamic, which could accept incoming connections. Nowadays, a lot of Internet subscribers' devices are behind network address translation (NAT), and if you share your IP address with the whole neighborhood, the ISP is unlikely to forward a port to your device.

Under your proposal:
1. How would the producer of a video cover the cost of producing the video before it even reaches BitTorrent?
2. How would a viewer learn of a video that they are likely to enjoy?
3. How would the system work around users who "leech", or view the video without contributing to its decentralized hosting?

The copyright statute of Slashdot's home country defines a "copy" as a physical object in which a work is embodied, such as a book, ROM cartridge, or optical disc. The statutory license associated with ownership of a copy of a computer program includes making intermediate copies "as an essential step" in the use of the program. Title 17, United States Code, section 117. Historically, console makers and game publishers have lacked power to revoke this license with respect to a particular copy of a game that isn't online-only. With the end of video game distribution on optical disc, this license becomes revocable, and that's the problem.

I'll have to disagree with you on that. What matters for reproducible builds is that the person performing the build has power to set the seed.

Not once the console maker shuts down the platform's reactivation servers.

Or say the publisher wants to publish a multiplayer game where players 2 through 4 can download a limited-functionality version of the game without charge so long as player 1 is a paying licensee and on their mutual contacts list. This resembles the model used by StarCraft spawned installations, single-Pak multiplayer on Game Boy Advance, and DS Download Play on Nintendo DS. I don't think all consoles support this sort of game sharing.

Correct. The digital restrictions management regime on paid downloads from PlayStation Store doesn't grant rights to a licensee that are equivalent to those that the law reserves for the owner of a copy. The complaint, as I understand it, is that the required notice of inequivalence is not conspicuous enough.

The benefits are not the same if the publisher or the platform gatekeeper retains the ability to remotely disable licensed software.

Or, in the case of certain failure modes of PlayStation Store (such as end of support for a particular platform), the ability to restore your license to replacement hardware.

I never heard of that being the case in the United States, where the lawsuit described in the featured article was filed.

That's like saying publishers of printed books, zines, and newspapers never sold books, zines, and newspapers.

Narrowing:
1. The right answer in the case of games with a substantial offline experience is to not make the license for the offline portion revocable.
2. The right answer in the case of games without a substantial offline experience is to describe the license as a rental at all times.

All three major console makers require all customers to "agree[] to let them change the terms when you signed up." If a game developer wants to sell a customer an indefinite license that the console maker can't revoke, the developer has no way to do so. This appears to be evidence of a cartel to me. How is it not?

Say I buy an indefinite license to use a video game. Then the game's publisher or the platform's owner unilaterally revokes that license. What do I have to show for having "respect[ed] the time and effort that went into creating your enjoyment"?

Title 17, United States Code, reserves specific rights to the owner of a copy. It defines a copy as a physical object in which a work is fixed (17 USC 101).

The owner of a copy of a computer program retains the right to use that copy, including the right to make essential ephemeral copies in RAM, as long as the copy remains readable (17 USC 117).

As I understand it, ownership of a physical object is defined by the personal property laws of the several states.

A "copy" under United States copyright law is any physical object in which a work of authorship is fixed, such as a game cartridge or game disc. The owner of a lawfully made copy of a work enjoys two carveouts, or uses deemed noninfringing. One is reselling that copy (17 USC 109). Another is making private copies essential to the use of a computer program (17 USC 117). These carveouts subsist as long as the copy remains readable. A license through PlayStation Store does not.