When I was growing up the entertainment business model was pretty straightforward.  I would call it intuitive.

Going to show, playing recorded music, watching TV, listening to the radio

For movies and live shows (concerts, theatre, sporting events) you had to go to the venue, pay the tarrif, they let you in and you could watch.

For TV and radio the entertainment was funded by advertising.

In the case of printed media you paid for the item or the revenue stream was a combination of purchase price and advertising.

And time passed

Tools to record and save entertainment events, like personal tape recorders, video recorders, photo copiers and the like made it easier to “steal” the entertainment product and enjoy it yourself over and over.  You could even resell it, although this is illegal.

Present Day

With digital recording , downloading and streaming the access to all types of entertainment (movies, music, even live shows) has become very difficult to control.  The simple business model, you pay or the advertiser pays, then you are entertained is rapidly disappearing.

The replacement models are wide and varied and although at their core the basic business models still boil down to either user pays or advertiser pays; the delivery mechanisms and the collection mechanisms have multiplied.

Is this good?

The person or persons creating the entertainment need to be fairly compensated.  What constitutes fair compensation? I would also ask whether restricting the delivery of entertainment to vehicles where payment can be forced does not violate the ability of information to be disseminated freely and openly (free speech)

For me at this point I am not sure what the answer is.  I strongly support a free and unrestricted internet but also totally empathize with an entertaine right to compensation.