Livingstone and Lunt
They say:
the needs of a citizen are in conflict with the needs of the consumer because protection can limit freedom. They noticed that regulating media to protect citizens from harmful content can limit freedom of expression.
Consumers have wanted, are individuals, seek private benefits from the media, use the language of choice, and require regulation to protect against detriment; citizens have needs, are social, seek public or social benefits from the media, use the language of rights, and require regulation to promote the public interest.
How we’ll use it:
The social benefit of piracy and infringing upon copyright law allow citizens to maintain their place within their social group by ensuring they can engage with their social group when discussing particular media.
(You could also use them in the audience and sensitive/harmful content section by discussing the idea that simply banning harmful media limits freedom of expression).
Seaton and Curran
They say:
Most media industries are dominated by a few large conglomerates. These companies are all about power and profits. They produce media to ensure they maximise profits and maintain their power within the industry.
How we’ll use it:
By pirating media products, consumers of media limit the profit potential of a piece of work from the conglomerates, reducing their power. This is why it is often these conglomerates that are actively pursuing copyright infringement and you hear less from the individual creator (such as a musician/band)