The ability to change features, prices, and availability of things you’ve already paid for is a powerful temptation to corporations.

  • vsh@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Taking a product from the shop without paying and returning the item later is still stealing.

    There was a history on Reddit where man stole a few grands of $ in products over a few years at his local grocery shop, and one day when he wanted to return what he stole he was arrested on site.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Taking a product from the shop without paying and returning the item later is still stealing.

      The issue here is that there is a period of time where the shop does not have the item.

      • poopkins@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        If you are trying to make an analogy to digital copies, this still doesn’t hold water. The copyright holder does not have ownership of your copy.

        • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The copyright holder should never have ownership of my copy. If I purchase it it should be mine to use. The shop should not be allowed to come to my house and take it away.

          • poopkins@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            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.”

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              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.”

              • poopkins@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                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.