It should be legal to stream/download movies for free off the internet

Neither the resolution nor my opponent's opening constructive offers a specific brand, company, or format of movies to be considered in this debate; the most specific classification from my opponent is "the movie industry"---which is vague, at best. For the purpose of this debate, Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has conflicting definitions of "industry": Definition 2(a): systematic labor especially for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value. Definition 2(b): a department or branch of a craft, art, business, or manufacture; especially: one that employs a large personnel and capital especially in manufacturing. Here, definition 2(a)'s "something of value" standard is subjective, which can directly contrast definition 2(b)'s specific capital-based criterion. Nevertheless, because no clear distinction as to what types of "movies" or "industry" is given in my opponent's arguments---as well as no contrary definitions for these terms---I will base some of my counterarguments on the definitions above, as well as the possibility that any movie---created, produced, and distributed by anyone---is fair game for this debate. Now, to direct clash: (1.) While I love capitalism, the issue raised in my opponent's first contention is not a direct roadblock for the fruits of one's labor. With modern technology like "YouTube" web sites and peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing servers (i.e., Limewire) so advanced and commonplace, it is the burden of the major film companies to adjust until these technologies are deemed illegal or are severely regulated by governments in which they're used. For example, these technologies offer---free of charge---worldwide publicity on-demand, 24/7. And as with the music industry, such technologies have not caused substantial and increased profit-drops over the past 5-10 years. In fact, the availability of movies through such technologies often encourage movie companies to put exclusive, sometimes never-before-released features on their DVDs, in order to encourage sales. Film studios also utilize profit-based, pay-to-view features of the Internet, such as Netflix and Playstation Network, among many others. So movie studios are not limited just to the free distribution of their products via the Internet. Also, if an employee for a film company wants to get paid as per distribution and popularity of the film for which (s)he's working, that employee and his or her agent should add a contractual clause allowing for consideration of such aforementioned technologies. While it might be an irritating process, it is far from impossible or even implausible. (That's how contract law works all the time.) (2.) My opponent's second argument actually supports my case. Not everyone can get the recognition of major film studios, or find conncections to hot-shot Hollywood producers; and hardest of all, most people cannot afford to make movies on their own personal budgets. Therefore, technologies like YouTube and P2P servers offer significantly better chances for recognition and viewers of one's art (i.e., one's "something of value"). Besides, not all skilled workers are employed by major film studios. The Internet gives everyone a fair shot based on merit and talent, not just nepotism. (3.) People may not usually steal products just to see whether or not they might like to purchase them; but the issue here is not exactly theft or larceny, as I exemplified in counterargument (1). There are often mutual benefits for both prospective consumers who download videos for free (for example)---and those who produced such videos with, for example, a profit in mind. And there certainly exist mutual benefits for those not necessarily seeking a direct, correlative profit for their movies (counterargument (2)). But considering my opponent's contention at face value, many companies and products do offer free samples, test drives, trial offers, etc., exclusively to persuade consumers to invest in company products in the future. This happens all of the time. Thus, to use my opponent's example of the chocolate bar, a wise consumer would not likely steal the bar, but look for a sample of the chocolate first, being as it wouldn't likely be too difficult to find. To recap, it SHOULD remain (at least, where I live) legal for movies to be downloaded from the internet, for free, for several key reasons: (1) Film corporations/studios and their employees have a burden to adapt to modern technology, and can do so through contractual considerations, especially when a clear and consistent advantage is/can be gained from the extra, free exposure such technology provides; (2) Not all skilled workers and/or qualified filmmakers work for major studios, and they need the Internet to limit their costs and possibly establish a fan base and other connections via cost-effective exposure and worldwide, 24/7 accessibility; (3) Other businesses use many similar means for offering consumers discounted samples or copies of products, with intentions for future profit/return investments in their respective businesses. For these reasons, I urge a PRO vote.