Comment on Pluralistic: "If buying isn't owning, piracy isn't stealing"

• poopkins@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  The key difference here is that you only own the copy when the copyright holder sells it to you. I don’t know if you’re being obtuse, but this shouldn’t be a difficult concept to grasp. If it helps in understanding, try replacing “copy” with “product” and “copyright holder” with “store.”

  source

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    The key difference here is that you only own the copy when the copyright holder sells it to you

    Right, I should own my copy. I have purchased this copy and it’s mine now. It’s bullshit for a store to say “now that we no longer sell the thing your purchased previously you’re not allowed to own it anymore.”

    source

    • poopkins@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

      Ownership is one condition that a copyright holder might offer, but that’s not guaranteed. Video rental shops would allow unlimited consumption for a limited time period, for example. We can argue all day about the differences and what consumers want versus the conditions under which content producers currently operate. I am personally also extremely frustrated by that, and I vote with my wallet: I do not subscribe to services that I find too restrictive or too expensive.

      Where I am in the minority, however, is my position that copyright infringement is illegal, unethical and can in any way be legitimized.

      source