If I cant buy (and when I mean buy, i do not mean "rent for a non specified duration"), then I pirate.
If content creator want people to buy their content, then they should sell it.
If content creator want people to buy their content, then they should sell it.
They are selling it. Just because they're not selling in precisely the way you want them to, that does not mean that you're entitled to the content anyway.
You justify your piracy all you want, but let's not pretend that you'd fork over the cash to legitimize your entire library of pirated entertainment if it showed up tomorrow on some store that offered exclusively freedom-respecting DRM-free downloads (okay, maybe you would, but most people wouldn't).
Not the same. Honestly they should be forced to say "rent until we change our minds" instead of "buy" in the advertisements and interfaces.
Do you mean rent? See parent poster's clarification for the term "buy":
> and when I mean buy, i do not mean "rent for a non specified duration"
> They are selling it.
The word "sell" means something different. They are not selling it if all they are doing is renting it.
Which is their right if that's what they want, but there needs to be some legislation to prevent them from calling it a sale when it's really merely a short-term rental.
Cant do that with DVD.
I’m not saying you are wrong for not wanting those terms.
Even DVDs will fail this test.
I'd say that most modern media piracy is still a matter of cost and convenience. If you're the kind of person that watches a couple of movies a week, at $20 a pop the cost adds up fast. Plus you have to go to the store or order online and wait for a DVD to show up. With piracy you can watch right away. It's one of the reasons Netflix was such a game-changer.
Somehow along the way a lot of people got it into their heads that all entertainment (and also news and educational materials. Basically, anything that doesn't have a physical form) should be free (free as in beer and free as in freedom) and they'll go through some impressive mental contortions to rationalize their piracy any way they can.
"Thomas Aquinas [argued] ... a law only need to be obeyed if it is [among other things] ... for the common good."[1]
The question we have to ask is: Is current copyright law unjust?
Well, it allows telling people that they are buying something (in large print, even if the fine print says something else) then taking that thing away.
And copyright on digital goods allows unprecedented control over how tools are used, when and where content can be shown, and how things that we've paid for can be retained and resold.
And it is also clear that recent copyright laws were written for the benefit of a few corporations, not for the common good.
So I'm beginning to believe that current copyright law is unjust and should be disobeyed as a principled form of civil disobedience, not merely for convenience or to save money.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_unjust_law_is_no_law_at_all
Maybe in theory. In practice, I disagree. Care to elaborate if you mean anything other than what's technically said on the box? Even the most recent DVD releases work on the oldest of DVD players without any firmware updates/online drm that could revoke a license or something.
That's clearly not true, since starting from the 70s up until fairly recently one could always buy the movies to keep for life.
> Even DVDs will fail this test.
You'll have to explain that thinking, since they don't. I buy a DVD (which is the only way I buy movies) and it's mine to keep forever. If I get tired of it, I can resell it to someone else.