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
      26
      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
            1
            ·
            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.”