An opinion that seems very prolific on Slashdot is that consumers have a right to consume anything that has been created. They don't. The right to consume is not recognized by law, nor should it be.
On the contrary - it is. That is, after all, the whole point of copyright: The temporary granting of control over who can copy your work in order to encourage you to produce more. Once that temporary period is over, it's freely available for anyone to consume. Sure, there may be production costs, which is why paying for a copy of Shakespeare's plays is acceptable under law (and they'll usually come with commentary, thus being a 'new' edition), but you can freely obtain the basic text without anyone complaining. In other words, the default position - for the majority of the lifespan of the civilisation - is freedom to consume anything that you like. It's only for a very small space of time that this freedom is waived. The problem is that this temporary period is getting longer and longer, and that people (such as yourself) are believing the propoganda that this is How Things Should Be.
"Floggings will continue until morale improves." -- anonymous flyer being distributed at Exxon USA