I'd totally do it but I think we'd need a total system overhaul in order to pull it off. There are too many restrictions in place that would prevent this from happening the way it needs to happen to not piss off viewers. Also, as soon as they tried to charge me money for it I'd go back to not caring about the authorized versions and watching whatever I want for free.
You don't even have to illegally download stuff anymore to watch for free. There are streaming sites all over the world where one can find unauthorized content (and you don't even have to look that hard to find what you want to watch). Sure, sometimes the quality suffers - but it's the content I'm interested in. It's the same reason why microcinema has become so popular. There were many who said microcinema would never catch on because viewers wouldn't put up with the crappy quality, but clearly they were proven wrong.
I think that even though it is somewhat childish, it's a brilliant idea to give these guys a taste of their own medicine. Suddenly it's wrong when someone else is doing it back to you (even though in this case it's just a prank to show how messed up the system really is). I'm glad someone had the gall to do it.
I look at it like this: People often file such outrageous lawsuits because when you look at what major corporations do - it's the same thing. We cannot allow large corporations with large sums of money to do it and then expect others not to.
1 - I completely agree that this is reducible to childish complaining... Do mp3 players require additional licensing from record companies before I can sync my music library with it? Nope. So why should music lockers? Someone could take this further and create an mp3 player that has no HDD and streams your entire music collection from a remote server (This could connect via a wifi connection or through services similar to that offered by mobile providers).
2 - The "digital receipt" argument is pathetic and laughable at best. As with all other similar concepts, this would be easy for hackers to work around... This means that as with all other DRM, the legitimate consumers are being punished for what alleged copyright infringers are doing.
This is not the free market at work. This is not survival of the fittest. What's happening here is that the big dogs have run out of juice. They can't keep up and they can't innovate so instead of playing by the rules, they're throwing their money around to try to change the rules. It's an incredibly simply and sadly an incredibly effective tactic on their end. They have been doing this forever and without solving the underlying problem (allowing businesses with enough money to essentially change the rules of the game), this will never cease to happen.
This ties in incredibly well with the post: "US On What Makes A Good Canadian Heritage Minister: Willing To Disappoint Canadians To Please Big Business" (http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110428/17263314074/us-what-makes-good-canadian-heritage-minister -willing-to-disappoint-canadians-to-please-big-business.shtml), where the ominous quote goes:
"Canadian Heritage ministers must be strong enough to disappoint that core constituency in order to strike compromises with other departments, primarily Industry Canada."
This is the prevailing attitude. Most people aren't even blind to it anymore, they just feel that there is little they can do about it. At some point, we need to grow up and let ineffective businesses fail - hard. If you can't provide goods or services that people are willing to spend their hard-earned money on, then you should absolutely be allowed to fail.