It's not the same as downloading from torrents, but it's also not the same as getting it legally.
I think that is spot on analysis that shows that the real debate is more moral than legal since the legal system lacks the nuance to completely address the morality of the situation. Good job.
My contribution to that debate is at some level morality gives way to practicality. Despite all the excuses 17 year old me had in 1999 Napster was wrong. Stealing those songs were wrong. But it happened and a lot of people doing that changed the industry in a fairly short time into one I am giving more money to than even before when Napster hit (between Spotify fees and random digital purchases to fill in what their library lacks). The industry was forced to adapt, and it did.
The end result was the morals didn't matter, market forces matter. There are side arguments like Spotify isn't sustainable or the current model doesn't pay enough, but no one can deny piracy pressure forced a practical product that was better than the illegal side ever offered. The ends don't justify the means but at some point reality can't be denied. The music companies forever lost complete control over distribution back in 1999 and the public (and much more powerful technology companies) have/had no interest in funding all the legal resources to put their genie back in their bottle for them. So they adapted.
If the video content producers cling to consumer fragmentation, annoying restrictions, or ploys to force people back into the old/dying but more lucrative models of distribution (like Hulu does) then they are making their product worse than piracy and giving pirates the market strength needed to increase their influence and do more harm long-term. These companies need to come together and standardize their offerings pronto rather than hide behind 20th century distribution models. They either beat the convenience of piracy (which a VPNed Netflix does), or we all watch as a huge chunk of the current media infrastructure for video dies and isn't replaced. Which would suck.
For example, on the VPN issue what you or I think about the morals or US legal implications doesn't matter. What the local authorities in that country think is what matters, because they have to enforce the rule. When the consumer explains all the hoops they tried to jump through to pay them and get the content legally only to fail (because of distribution agreements) that might encourage local authorities to look the other way to commercialized piracy that does offer convenience. And if a place embraces commercialized piracy eventually it becomes a haven for things like streaming sites or worse that US/Europe based pirates then use and real damage is done in non related markets.
Peeing on a fire won't put it out. Convincing people to stop putting wood on it like the music companies did will.
Facebook
Twitter