Some basic Info:

MP3 is the popular file format of music files without "Digital Rights Management" added on top. In theory that format offloads the enformcement side somewhere else. It is nearly public domain: there are some 18ish year old patents on part of the technology, but patents only last for some 21 years anyway, so soon that aspect will go away. Basically, record companies made a killing at the expense of Artists (whom they claim to represent in the big lawsuits). This is because the Back Catalogue classics are eternal fare for radio/muzak stations. But once digital music formats hit the scene, with the computing power to back it, a song can be copied for free, amazingly easily. Rather than dive into the brave new world of Viral Upsells, the record industries went to a Lawsuit model.

RIAA and MPAA are the Record Industry Association of America and the Motion Picture Association of America. By America, they mean the producers and the executive, they mean the executives, not the Artists or the Screenwriters. Now granted, the Motion Picture situation is even more dire. It does take 40-100 million dollars to produce a film that can later be copied for free. It's a different mood than the Song Problem.  But the fundamental conceptual problem is the same: digital goods can be "reproduced and distributed for free", leaving all the costs in the "development" stage.

There is no clear answer here.

Hulu is a US-Based Internet TV-On-Demand type service that aggregates some hundred TV shows and plays the last 3-5 episodes at any given time. The advantages of this for the viewer are immense: Instead of warping the hard schedule of Tuesday or Thursday nights, (or even Mondays and Fridays), around particular shows, just visit the page and watch the last couple of episodes whenever you want. So on Saturday Night from 1-4 AM you can catch up on 3 weeks of episodes.

Youtube is the famous Video Clip service. The situation here is spottier. The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) requires that a Takedown Notice be filed for an infringing item. Lately this has lead to even more aggressive Copyright acts being promoted, but let's stay general here. So on YouTube, they have removed some High Profile properties, but the bad-quality fringe copies of older works tend to stay. There have been a couple of memos that the studios play both sides: they upload their works-properties, then play all "innocent" when claiming Copyright Infringement.