I'm sorry, but the vast majority of human output is not worthy of copyright protection anyway. What maximalists are missing about this is that each time they manage to extend copyright in some way, it becomes that much easier for larger portions of the population to hold it in the contempt it richly deserves.
And only hinted at of course, there is the presumption in this that all natural persons are doing this, when it is far from the case. Same thing happens with media levies - why should I pay a levy to "rightsholders" for the media I use to back stuff up on? I shouldn't. period.
Even if you were right, you missed the point. Breaking up streaming content into "exclusives" and time boxing is exactly what drives people to alternatives. While I understand that these companies are trying to give people a compelling reason to buy, more often they are giving them a compelling reason to obtain it from source in which no-one gets paid.
Seems to me the FBI argument is the defense shouldn't see the NIT code because they don't know what they will find... I am surprised that this judge has painted himself into a corner with a logical fallacy this simple...
I would have thought ANY politician voting on this should reject it on the very grounds that they cannot know what is in it. Unfortunately, the fact that things like this pass shows that the voting process is as suspect as everything else.