Re: "two non-Freetard reasons to download a title"
If the movie was broadcast on TV, then the people who made it got paid, the people who broadcast it got paid, and I got to see it "for free."
If I download an unadulterated version of that movie instead of watching the altered version on TV, the people who made it still got paid, the people who broadcast it still got paid, and I got to see it "for free" but somehow now it's immoral? Is morality not derived from intent? Was my intent to steal it or just watch the complete version of it?
The idea that the altered version of the film is a distinct copyrighted work is in fact technically correct and the media companies certainly treat them this way. But the two versions of the movie are substantively similar enough that any average person would hold the opinion that they are NOT different works. An explicitly differing version like a "Director's Cut" wouldn't be covered by this TV argument as that work has been specifically altered with the intent of creating a distinct artistic variation of the original. Time-compression and/or censoring the swear words is merely a technical/format change.
The geographic non-availablity argument's fix is to just sell it online and stop doing geolocation filtering. If I live somewhere that has local laws blocking the movie from being sold to me, let me worry about that part; it isn't the copyright holder's concern.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
