That's okay. Maybe they'll produce something that somebody can actually use.
use what they produce. Maybe not in the way you want, and maybe not in as many ways as you should be able to use it, but you can use it.
While I agree that current copyright laws are draconian there is no reason that you deserve automatic access to someone else's work. A professional musician will have put thousands of hours into perfecting their musical skills. Why are they obligated to let you hear their music for free? Why are they not allowed to make money off of it? While it would be nice if we lived in a perfect world where no one needs to worry about money that's simply not the reality.
It takes money to train musicians, it takes money to produce high quality recordings, it takes money to advertise and tell people about an artist or band. There has to be some kind of compensation somewhere along the line here and you can't expect it all to come out of the musician's pocket especially when you (the listener) is deriving pleasure (if you like the music, obviously) from hearing it.
For something to be qualified to be called art, it needs to have aesthetic beauty and social impact, at least IMO. Metallica does not produce art. The Spice Girls do not produce art. What they do has very little social worth. A programmer produces something that can actually be used.
Why does something have to have "social impact" to be art? Why can't art be beautiful for the sake of being beautiful? Why must everything have a 'message'? And how do you even define social impact? Any definition will be extremely subjective.
And while you (or I) may not enjoy listening to or appreciate Metallica or The Spice Girls doesn't mean other people don't.
You and I define value differently, then. My definition of value is purely utilitarian - value is determined by how useful a contribution to society is made, how greatly it improves efficiency or prevents suffering or similar.
The problem with defining value as purely a measure of how much something contributes to society is that we don't live in a society that's purely concerned with surviving. We live in a society where people buy things not only because they need them but because they want them as well. That argument might have been valid a few hundred years ago, but not now.
I also don't see the problem with getting TV shows on the internet, since I could watch them for free anyway, I'm not taking money, I'm getting something for free that I could watch for free.
You're also preventing television networks from getting ad revenue they would be getting if you watched the show. I think television networks need to realize what century they're in and start putting stuff online (what's not already) in an easy-to-access, convenient manner, but loss of ad revenue is the problem networks have with people getting their shows off the internet.