Making a digital copy of something is not the same as stealing. In many instances, the occurrence of piracy is actually beneficial to the party releasing the digital product.
Paying for a service actually doesn’t mean you own lifetime access to that service.
I’m all for boycotting on the basis of greedy monopolies attempting to extract more cash without any added value, but this argument doesn’t really make a lot of sense.
I’m not arguing against piracy. It’s obviously not stealing. That was my first point.
My whole thing is that embellishing the obvious factual statement that “piracy is not theft,” doesn’t really drive the point home any more effectively. I find this specific argument needlessly clunky when the first point remains true in any context.
if owning a product is based in ownership of the product and buying proves ownership then, you can’t own their product by “buying” their product when they can revoke your ownership anytime.
so, if you can’t buy the product and can’t own the product, you can’t steal the product because they never gave you possession of it.
they didn’t lease me the use of the product according to the law, they sold it to me. from a legal perspective, there are contracts, signatures, and other documents that must be filed for every lease to determine the structure of the lease. TOS is not a binding contract strong enough for leases.
funny thing, that’s one of the fights going on right now with companies like Disney and Doordash. their argument that the victim agreed to their (broad) TOS, releases them of any legal liability.
should the corpos win those cases, TOS for the most mundane bullshit will likely end terribly for consumers.
Making a digital copy of something is not the same as stealing. In many instances, the occurrence of piracy is actually beneficial to the party releasing the digital product.
Paying for a service actually doesn’t mean you own lifetime access to that service.
I’m all for boycotting on the basis of greedy monopolies attempting to extract more cash without any added value, but this argument doesn’t really make a lot of sense.
if that’s what you think, I have a bridge to sell you.
It’s worth $6.7billion but the lowest I’ll go is $3.50
once you pay me you can have that bridge, but don’t you dare copy it.
I’m not arguing against piracy. It’s obviously not stealing. That was my first point.
My whole thing is that embellishing the obvious factual statement that “piracy is not theft,” doesn’t really drive the point home any more effectively. I find this specific argument needlessly clunky when the first point remains true in any context.
if owning a product is based in ownership of the product and buying proves ownership then, you can’t own their product by “buying” their product when they can revoke your ownership anytime.
so, if you can’t buy the product and can’t own the product, you can’t steal the product because they never gave you possession of it.
they didn’t lease me the use of the product according to the law, they sold it to me. from a legal perspective, there are contracts, signatures, and other documents that must be filed for every lease to determine the structure of the lease. TOS is not a binding contract strong enough for leases.
funny thing, that’s one of the fights going on right now with companies like Disney and Doordash. their argument that the victim agreed to their (broad) TOS, releases them of any legal liability.
should the corpos win those cases, TOS for the most mundane bullshit will likely end terribly for consumers.