"this is literally the problem that copyright was first created to solve: publishers appropriating a creative work in its entirety and selling it without compensating the author."
This is a shallow justification of copyright. I fail to see the implied mandate that someone making money by copying the works of others should compensate the artist they are copying. This just shows that artists can't compete with one of the natural properties of information: it's easy to copy. It also ignores that culture builds on culture. You can't create new "original" works without the existence of prior works. If the goal is to enable artists to be compensated for their labor, then copyright is completely the wrong way to go about it. Adopting a mindset that creative works should be treated like exclusive property is contrary to reality when exclusivity is not natural to the object in question. If the goal is to maintain a monopoly on copying and distribution, you've failed as soon as you publish your works.
The proper solution is a mindset that leads to adapting to the reality of what the artist truly has control over. The truth is, you only have control over your own will. So it follows that artist and audience would be better off forming an agreement prior to the act of labor which produces the creative works. It also shifts your focus onto serving the people that are willing to pay you and accepting that copying is just part of marketing.
Copyright is the model of doing the work today and hoping that people will agree to pay you tomorrow. Don't do that; get your just compensation settled before you do any work. Everything else is dealing with plagiarism.
This is the problem with automatic copyright. It makes everyone vulnerable to litigation, forcing them to make a case for fair use. This weakens fair use to the point of uselessness. Better that works be unprotected until registered. Then the first, and most important, factor for fair use would be "Is it registered?" Then we might finally start to see how tedious it is to apply copyright to every bit and byte in digital spaces.
Oh, how silly of me! I didn't realize that I don't have a legitimate grievance when it's not vital to my survival!
You know what? Comcast doesn't need my money for that content because culture and art existed long before there was a business built around it. Art will survive without my money, so I'll just have it when, where, and how I want it. If companies like Comcast don't want to sell me the service I want to pay for, then I'll just help myself.
That doesn't excuse the fact that your options are less than what they could provide. That's like using gum to plug a hole in the Hoover dam. I'm not going to allow myself to be pissed on and have them try to convince me it's rain. Those services are a pale shadow of what could be offered.
This stinks of a risk-adverse mentality. They aren't following the will of the market. They're using psychological manipulation on players to get them to spend more money than they would otherwise. They're focusing on what makes people spend money, rather than what people would actually find satisfying. It's the same psychological tactics casinos use to trap gamblers in to spending more money.
It's better to view modern online games as casinos, rather than actual games.
Getting rid of the DRM provision in the DMCA would be analogous to repealing prohibition. Despite the illegality of it, people are still doing it regardless and massively so. It's irrational to wax apocalyptic about allowing circumvention when it's already pervasive. Chicken Little would be shocked by such alarmist statements.
You'd be wrong about that. In the war of 1812, men defending fort McHenry from a British attack put themselves in the path of cannons that were trying to knock down the American flag. Their corpses were all that kept that flag from touching the ground, and those were the events that became the lyrics for the Star Spangled Banner.
That said, dying over a flag is a foolish gesture. Someone dying to defend principles and liberty are a different thing entirely. To take offense at the abuse of a flag is just silly. The flag is not sacred, but people are. Anyone who abuses a flag should not be ostracized for the flag. Instead, they should be reprimanded the same as anyone who would vandalize a building. Conversely, anyone that abuses a flag out of grievance with the government it represents should actually be called a patriot. That's what patriotism is, telling the government that they are infringing your fundamental rights.
You can't use lots of upstream if you don't have it. That's no different than saying nobody wants to speed when every car is locked at a top speed of 5mph. There's cloud storage, personal streaming video channels, bit-torrent, home cloud server, using your home network as a VPN when using public wifi, working remotely, hosting a WAN party, and so on. Let's not forget that several people could be using that upstream bandwidth at the same time.
25/3 isn't good enough. It should be 25/25 minimum. Asynchronous internet access is ignoring the fact that people are just as much creators of content as they are consumers of content. The slow upstream speed is just a ploy to keep people dependent on legacy services like cable and landline phone.
"Fact: A huge loss for society and culture is when people don't pay creatives for their labor and thus they are forced to do non-creative things to make money in order to live."
I think your online dictionary had a database error and gave the definition of the word "opinion" in place of the word "fact".
How about we blame the economic system instead? Because of money, people can't simply do what they love, regardless that it provides societal value, because they have to sacrifice their time to occupations that earn money. Even if they can earn money doing art, they have to concede to market demands. They often can't do the art they truly desire to make, but have to make art that consumers want. That's a tragedy in itself.