The real problem is that people think "IP" means "something that exists only in your head" when, in fact, it applies to a whole slew of things.

There is a real, tangible cost to producing IP. Movies cost money to make. Albums cost money to make. Photographs cost money to make. There's the time invested, the expense of the equipment needed, salaries - it all adds up.

In the pre-digital age, music, movies and photographs were distributed solely via physical mediums. If you wanted to copy any of these, you had to use a physical method and there was an associated cost vs. quality issue.

If you recorded to cassette from vinyl, the copy was inferior to the original.. though still "good enough" to be enjoyed. Every time you made a copy of a copy, the quality degraded. Also, all that physical media took up space - so there was a real limit to the copies of media an individual might have.

The core issue that supporters of SOPA have been battling since the dawn of the digital age and the widespread use of the internet is that copies are now near indistinguishab le from the original product... and there are now virtually no limitations on how widespread copying can be, now that it is only limited by the capacity of the devices used.

People are lazy, greedy and - without the threat of repercussions for their actions - a good many will indulge themselves wantonly.

It takes months or years to create a work of film, music or other "IP" - never mind the knowledge and experience garnered up to the point the idea is realised.

It takes seconds to click a download link on the internet and get a perfect copy of that work. At best, the creator will lose revenue - after all, you wanted what they created, but didn't want to pay. In the pre-internet age, you'd have to do without OR make do with an inferior copy on physical media... not easily shared or distributed.

The other end of the scale is individuals and websites whom PROFIT from ripping off the "IP" of others. Yes, *you* might not have to pay for the MP3 or MP4 you just downloaded... but the sites hosting these files can make tons of money from advertising revenues and other income streams.

People using the internet have had a free ride for too long. You ARE NOT ENTITLED to obtain music, movies or photographs or other materials without paying for them - no more than you are entitled to a 50" LCD TV without paying for it. Heck, even access to the internet is not a human right. (see http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/opinion/internet-access-is-not-a-human-right.html)

Free speech existed just fine in the time before the widespread use of the internet. Blocking websites whose sole purpose is distributing the "IP" of others is not censorship or restriction of free speech.

If you can't afford something: DO WITHOUT. If you like something and feel it has value or enriches your life in some way (gives you enjoyment): PAY FOR IT.

You can't adapt to freeloading, and you shouldn't have to accept it either.

What is lost on a lot of people is that small businesses and the self-employed lose out the most via this culture "I'll just take it without paying, thanks"

Folk want a rich culture where the arts can flourish? Artists need paid. Without earning from their efforts, they'll eventually give up and seek "regular" employment... and then everyone loses.

Nope, because when you have a "UFC viewing party", you've paid to view it. You've put money in the pockets of the fighters - the people whom are entertaining you.

By streaming, you're putting money in the pockets of the website owners whom are hosting the stream. YOU might not be paying them directly, but they're getting advertising revenue.

None of that cash ever reaches the fighters... and lets not get into a sidebar argument about fighter pay.

The point remains: if you and a few buddies shell out the $50 for the PPV, it helps fighters get paid.