There are three sides here: Viacom's, DirecTV's and the consumer's. I am firmly in the last camp, and think the other two are both being belligerent, shortsighted and intractable.
If I want to buy someone's house and they're asking, say, $250k and I make them an offer for $10,000, I should not get indigent, set up camp on their lawn and spend $20,000 to put up a billboard stating all the reasons why they're wrong and I'm right ("it's a crappy house," "no one else wants to buy it," "they should be happy I even made them an offer at all, the ingrates," etc.) when they refuse it.
This example is not even close to what is going on here. Viacom is not listing its channels at a set price for all to purchase. A better example would be if you were instead renting a home and subleasing it at a certain price. Then when your lease expires the owner of the property says you can stay if you pay me %30 more of the term of the next lease for the same home you currently live in, without any improvements or maintenance on my part. You then have some choices.
1. Move on to a place with better rent, leaving your tenant who is sub-leasing out of luck.
2. Pass the expense of the increase on to your tenant if your lease allows you to.
3. Absorb the increase yourself putting yourself at a financial disadvantage, and hurting any future plans you had for the profits you were making with this arrangement.
4. Negotiate with the owner of the property. "I am already here, if I move you will have a span of time in which you are not collecting my rent for your empty property, which you still must pay taxes on at the end of the year. It is more beneficial for both of us if we can come to an agreement that will allow you to keep your income, and save me the cost of moving, and finding a new place. I'm sure we can work out a deal". Which is what D* tried to do, and basically the property owner evicted them while the negotiations were going on.
See the difference?