• demuxen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    11 hours ago

    It’s about them missrepresenting the transaction. If you go to the store and rent a movie then it’s an agreement that it’s temporary. If you buy it then they can’t take it back, what they are doing is fraud and complaining that we don’t want to deal with them.

    • Alk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      11 hours ago

      I agree with everything you said, however that has nothing to do with piracy. It’s a shitty thing they’re doing that we should be mad at, but it in no way sets the definition of piracy, which is what they’re going to try to defend against in any argument.

      What we should demand is that they properly define buying, owning, and renting so that we own our products. Piracy is piracy no matter what the definition of owning is. Only the reasons change. One reason is that they treat buying as renting, but it does not change the definition of piracy, no matter what we think the definition is.

      • skulblaka@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        7 hours ago

        I agree with you here, piracy isn’t theft for reasons unrelated to buying and owning. The reason lies with the infinite reproducibility of the product. While I may agree with the sentiment behind the post, it’s not technically a sound argument.