I read an excellent argument against this idea not too long ago in an HN comment. I wish I could track it down because I am going to do an awful job paraphrasing it, but it basically amounts to this:
To ask someone not to participate in media (watch videos) is tantamount to asking someone not to participate in culture. Cultural participation is a basic human need: people will go to great lengths, will in fact in despotic, tyrannical, totalitarian or fascistic regimes go so far as to actually risk their own lives and the lives of their loved ones to participate in unsanctioned culture. Whether the sanction comes by way of money or by way of politics, it is no matter.
The idea that "not watching the videos" is somehow an option ignores this basic (desperate) human need to participate in culture. It's not going to happen. Media existed before money and before despots. Media is what happens when a culture expresses itself. People are going to watch Jerry Springer, The Sopranos, and listen to Lady Gaga and listen to Woodie Guthrie, money or no (though when payment is convenient, we all know what happens). They will in fact lay down their lives to do so if the circumstances demand it. If that's the case, (and we often find ourselves praising the bravery of such individuals in those cases), then it doesn't seem to me to make any sense to become moralistically reversed when the matter isn't of death but of a few measly dollars.
Of course "not watching the videos" is an option. You decide your own culture. What if your friends don't watch TV? Then, you won't feel a need to view a show immediately upon release -- I certainly don't.
All of your friends could go to a $100/mo gym. Sure, you would have a "need" to participate in this culture. But, "not going to the gym" is perfectly acceptable too. After all, your friends may like you for more than your gym membership! Or, you could find new friends. Or, you could make up an excuse. It's not the end of the world.
This is a very narrow view of culture. If culture is simply any given activity, then yes, you decide your own culture. But if culture is simply any given activity, then we are talking about two different things. One can either go to the gym or not go to the gym and still be a part of the general culture in which one exists and be conversant in that culture. But one cannot abstain from all media and still be a part of that culture. We refer to such individuals as deprived, unfortunate, uneducated idiots. We in fact expect people to be conversant in culture through familiarity with available media. We say, "It is your responsibility to know yourself and know the world." One can do neither except via engagement with media. If there is a bureaucratic or fiscal or political lock-down on culture, we cannot say, "Well, too bad for those individuals, they'll just have to suffer their existence as deprived, unfortunate, uneducated, idiots." Yes, it is not that bad for anyone in the U.S. Yes, we are saturated with media. And, no, no one is suffering to any real extent because of the 8-day FOX hold on Hulu releases. But that's hardly the issue when someone says, "You don't like the price? Go eat worms." People have a right to watch Jerry Springer without paying a dime for it. Which isn't to say that one shouldn't charge a dime.
Edit: I said "U.S." above, but I really mean any culture for whom Hulu is not just a gibberish word.
Yes, but the aspects of the culture you're expected to know is purely dependent on your circle of friends. If you choose to hang out with entrepreneurs, your knowledge of the latest TV shows is irrelevant, and perhaps even looked down upon :)
So on that note, people should have to pay to watch Jerry Springer, if that's what the content producer wants.
I do not gain or lose anything (aside from my time) from watching or not watching Jerry Springer, or any other TV show. Perhaps I am lucky that none of my friends watch TV, but TV is a luxury. If you want to be part of a group whose "culture" involves watching the latest TV shows, joining expensive gyms, or even starting companies, then that is your choice. The value you gain from paying for these activities is in part feeling more connected to your friends, feeling part of a privileged group, or just personal satisfaction. Clearly, there is no inherent "need" to watch any TV show.
How convenient it is that media companies can perpetually turn last year's luxury into today's necessity, yet when their opponents use the same argument against them, they feel free to roll back the clock and declare everything beyond basic caloric sustenance a luxury once again.
This is not an argument about what or what doesn't constitute a good or healthy life; it is an argument about what is an acceptable barrier to cultural access and about the kind of moralizing that goes on around supposed breaches of property rights, where such (non)property includes such things as story, song, meaning, thought, abstraction and explanation, i.e. culture. You can't inject such things into people's lives and expect to keep control of them without resorting to really horrible treatment of your fellow human beings.
To ask someone not to participate in media (watch videos) is tantamount to asking someone not to participate in culture. Cultural participation is a basic human need: people will go to great lengths, will in fact in despotic, tyrannical, totalitarian or fascistic regimes go so far as to actually risk their own lives and the lives of their loved ones to participate in unsanctioned culture. Whether the sanction comes by way of money or by way of politics, it is no matter.
The idea that "not watching the videos" is somehow an option ignores this basic (desperate) human need to participate in culture. It's not going to happen. Media existed before money and before despots. Media is what happens when a culture expresses itself. People are going to watch Jerry Springer, The Sopranos, and listen to Lady Gaga and listen to Woodie Guthrie, money or no (though when payment is convenient, we all know what happens). They will in fact lay down their lives to do so if the circumstances demand it. If that's the case, (and we often find ourselves praising the bravery of such individuals in those cases), then it doesn't seem to me to make any sense to become moralistically reversed when the matter isn't of death but of a few measly dollars.