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

  • psud@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Stealing is the wrong word for it though as software piracy does not deprive the owner of the thing copied.

    There are arguments that it is nett good even as it gets people into an author, singer, game company, while they cannot afford it and they may become a good customer for that author, singer, game company later in life

    This new problem where companies revoke your licence to content is the industry shooting itself in the foot so I don’t care about the ethics of it, if they don’t sell me a product for me to own like I own a paper book, I’ll take a copy without licence

    • poopkins@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      How is the owner not deprived of your copy? Have you given it back to them? It’s an odd thing to mince over words like “theft” and “stealing.” If it’s the words that bother you, perhaps consider this: should it be permissible to consume a digital good without consent of the copyright holder?

      If the copyright holder wants more exposure, that is up to them to decide. It’s absolutely unreasonable to do so on their behalf and claim it’s somehow doing them a favor. With that logic, any form of theft can be legitimized.