No, I’m not getting it.  Because you’re wrong.  Even your initial hypothesis re a “billion dollar business” is from the stone age.  A single film can be worth double that.  Make all the excuses you want, the era of Everything Free All the Time is over.  Artificial price compression because of theft is a combat-able problem in any business.  There is no logic that says ‘Stealing is o.k. because…’ that is meaningful.  That’s all just lazy B.S.  

“‘We think there is a fundamental misconception about piracy. Piracy is almost always a service problem and not a pricing problem,’ he said. ‘If a pirate offers a product anywhere in the world, 24 x 7, purchasable from the convenience of your personal computer, and the legal provider says the product is region-locked, will come to your country 3 months after the US release, and can only be purchased at a brick and mortar store, then the pirate’s service is more valuable.’
…’Prior to entering the Russian market, we were told that Russia was a waste of time because everyone would pirate our products. Russia is now about to become [Steam's] largest market in Europe,’…” (taken from The Escapist)

Steam is the best digital distribution system that has been developed for video games. It helps curb piracy by tying the purchased game to the buyer’s account, which they can access by means of username and password. Steam also provides a means to communicate in game with friends, something that customers wouldn’t get if they bought a pirated game. Better service = less piracy. 

Digital distribution has barely started from the big media companies, when that’s exactly what people want and aren’t getting. Hulu was one of the best things that happened to the internet, along with any form of clips released by media companies online. I didn’t get to see Daniel Radcliffe host SNL, but I got to see the important bits released by NBC the next day. I got to consume media, and they made a profit off of me through their ad revenue. Everybody wins. 

Anti-competitive legislation isn’t the answer, particularly not when the legislation contains numerous bolted-on provisions that are harmful to the public interest.

And no, few execs were aware that a legitimate market existed, even in private. Everyone insisted that few consumers were interested in watching movies and television on their computers or on a mobile device. Peter Chernin, who is one of the very, very few people in entertainment who is actually capable of independent thought, was a notable exception.

And I don’t need to go to freakin’ wikipedia to understand the hackneyed tech cliche you reference.  This isn’t a technology issue, it is a theft issue.  Big tech – other than Apple and Amazon, who are credible partners – doesn’t want to admit that they’re used to traffic stolen digital files.  

Also, your history is wrong.  Whatever fictitious cabal of “hollywood execs” you’re talking about was well aware of online distribution in 2006.  Creative coalitions have been trying to pass reform since 2000.  The intent is not to limit free speech; the intent is to monetize that for which there is a market (unless that same item is trafficked off the back of a truck or through a pirate’s tool a la bit torrent).  

Five years ago, Hollywood execs didn’t believe that a market for digital content existed yet it was completely obvious to anyone not working in the industry.

It took 2 years of rampant piracy on YouTube–and hundreds of millions of dollars of forgone revenue–to convince them to get around to launching Hulu.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disruptive_technology

I’m not being contrarian – I want to know more.  Thanks.  

Wikimedians – those that voluntarily join in the process of writing Wikipedia – are amongst the best placed, and most experienced, people in identifying misinformation on the planet. They see people trying to insert misinformation into Wikipedia every day – and they ensure that it doesn’t stay there. They ensure that information is backed up with reliable, verifiable references. That well over a thousand of them are saying that this legislation is a problem indicates that it is indeed a problem that will cause significant harm to Wikipedia and other collaborative projects. The blackout simply wouldn’t be happening if that weren’t the case.

This blackout is no publicity stunt. Wikipedia doesn’t need publicity – it already has massive public impact without having to carry out any sort of stunt to gain extra publicity. It’s not driven by publicity – it’s driven by sharing factual knowledge freely with everyone on the planet. This blackout is a response to a threat that affects the fundamentals of the internet, and the basis upon which Wikipedia has been built. This legislation needs to be stopped, or it will cause irreparable damage to the internet as a whole.

Perhaps Rep. Smith can take advantage of this blackout to take a step back and appreciate and take onboard the concerns that the internet community is raising about this legislation, rather than taking the approach of “promoting fear instead of facts” that he is inaccurately (and ironically) accusing others of doing..