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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -18
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    By this logic no services should be paid. Are you really just hung up on the word “stealing”? It is wrong to go against an agreement or to take the work of others and not pay for it simply because it’s easy to do that when the work isn’t tangible.

    Are people really that fucked up today?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      1011 months ago

      I’m not talking about payment, I’m talking about if it’s stealing or not. It might be copyright infringement depending on local law, but it’s not stealing. Selling a copy might be counterfeiting.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      I never made an agreement but to copy things without paying. That agreement was made on my behalf, and if you look into the history of it, it’s really fucking shady. Copyright in the US originally lasted 20 years (IIRC), and I would be ok with that, but big copyright holders successfully bribed lawmakers to extend the term until now it’s effectively infinite.

      So tell me, was it immoral to ignore copyrights after 20 years when that was the law? Did changing the law change what’s moral?