• Nougat@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Let me restate the thing I was originally responding to:

    Piracy can’t be stealing if paying for it isn’t owning.

    This statement is so childishly oversimplified that it’s just wrong. It might make people “feel better” about piracy (in particular, their own piracy actions), but it does so based on a plainly invalid argument. That’s what I have been trying to point out.

    Are there problems with the way media sales are handled? Absolutely. When Amazon is able to pull your purchases back out of your access that they made consumers feel that they would have unlimited and perpetual access to (even if the very fine print said otherwise), that’s a huge problem. If a particular piece of media just isn’t available anywhere except for via streaming (or, frankly, anywhere at all outside of piracy), that’s also a problem.

    OP’s post doesn’t address any of that. The suggestion is that “If I have paid for something, I (edit: should) have full, unlimited, and perpetual ownership rights to it.” That’s just not true; the landscape of commerce is far more complicated than that, and it’s a mistake to just join into a weird hug boc about it.

    • samus12345@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Piracy in this context refers to copying data, not paying to rent physical items or places, and it’s a strawman argument to say it doesn’t.

      • Uriel-238@lemmy.fmhy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Besides which, rent-seeking (which taps from an economy without contributing) is a more harmful act than piracy. (I hesitate to use crime since the state has commonly shown to have sucky opinions on right and wrong.)