Yeah, well, in the case of Game of Thrones, it's quite an important work of art and it's priced out of reach for the vast majority of the public. Owning an important work of art could be argued to be a bit like having a monopoly on a utility. That might not sound compelling, but there the case for copyright protections isn't that compelling either. Copyright is supposed to be a beneficial exchange, where the public accept restrictions on their freedoms in order to encourage the creation of art. If the art created isn't being disseminated to the public, then what's the point? There's nothing moral about artificially propping up one particular business model.