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

  • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months 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
      ·
      10 months 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
        ·
        10 months 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
          ·
          10 months 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
            ·
            10 months 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.”