• haui
    link
    fedilink
    25 months ago

    Its unimportant which example you use.

    The underlying principle is legal ≠ correct. Just because something is legal, its not necessarily morally or otherwise correct.

    Selling a movie to someone and calling it a license is highly manipulative and I think you know that.

    • @TAYRN@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      55 months ago

      Yes, I said from the start that it might not be moral.

      But that’s exactly the point: companies sell movies to theaters, and then those theaters sell tickets to each viewer. That’s the license they each agreed to. A theater buying a movie off Amazon and then selling tickets to everyone who watched it would probably make some people upset, and would very clearly be illegal.

      • haui
        link
        fedilink
        -15 months ago

        Talk about mental gymnastics.

        You cant sell a limited time license. That is rent, plain and simple. If you pay 3 years rent at once or monthly, its still rent.

        If you pay for something and have to give it back, you dont actually become the „owner“.

        And thats why people say if buying isnt owning, piracy isnt theft, plain and simple.

        • @intensely_human@lemm.ee
          cake
          link
          fedilink
          05 months ago

          Renting generally refers to physical goods, with the following property: when it’s being used by one party, it’s unavailable to everyone else.

          For intellectual property, things that can be used by N people without interference between them, the term limited license is correct.

          • haui
            link
            fedilink
            25 months ago

            Its still manipulative to call it „selling“ or „owning“.