its not semantic. you are claiming a transfer of goods is happening, that is NOT TRUE.
now that this is clear we can argue about the rest but again if you want to imply some crime based on goods based transfer you are just wrong and id say in bad faith.
The product in this case is the right to view copyrighted material. You absolute can own digital material, that’s the entire point of copyright.
You have no right to the video material of say amazon. Amazon can do with their video material as they please, that is their product and they own it. They have the right to control the distribution of that product. When you priate, you infringe on their copyright, which makes it so they lose money on the service where they sell the right to view that copyrighted material. You can spin it until the sun is blue, that is stealing.
You can spin it until the sun is blue, that is not stealing.
you havent removed anything. that is a fact. copyright? i dont recognize that. still im not committing a crime when i download Tetris Effect. i can go to a cop right now and tell them and they would be like “cool” because again its not a crime.
@BraBraBra
No they didn’t. Amazon still offers the copied product. They only remove it when it’s inconvenient to pay residuals.
But if you argue for intellectual “property” exclusivity, then you argue for monopoles, inhibition of innovation (try making something like Google’s project Ara) and protect life-threatening practices of the pharma industry (why you can’t start making insulin in the USA or make a covid vaccine in the Global South?).
No I’m not. Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly on creating video content. They do however have a right to exclusively show video content that they have the rights to.
@BraBraBra
Yes, you are. Especially that you’ve just left a specific context of copying a given video or given medical product for a very broad context of “Amazon doesn’t a monopoly on making videos”, that can’t be denied, and skipping the medical part.
its not semantic. you are claiming a transfer of goods is happening, that is NOT TRUE.
now that this is clear we can argue about the rest but again if you want to imply some crime based on goods based transfer you are just wrong and id say in bad faith.
The product in this case is the right to view copyrighted material. You absolute can own digital material, that’s the entire point of copyright.
You have no right to the video material of say amazon. Amazon can do with their video material as they please, that is their product and they own it. They have the right to control the distribution of that product. When you priate, you infringe on their copyright, which makes it so they lose money on the service where they sell the right to view that copyrighted material. You can spin it until the sun is blue, that is stealing.
You can spin it until the sun is blue, that is not stealing.
you havent removed anything. that is a fact. copyright? i dont recognize that. still im not committing a crime when i download Tetris Effect. i can go to a cop right now and tell them and they would be like “cool” because again its not a crime.
i have the right to look at whatever i find.
You have removed Amazon’s right to exclusively offer their product, which is a right that they have and you do not.
no i havent touched their rights XD you are really out of arguments
Yep, you have subverted the exclusivity of their product, which they do have a right to.
@BraBraBra
No they didn’t. Amazon still offers the copied product. They only remove it when it’s inconvenient to pay residuals.
But if you argue for intellectual “property” exclusivity, then you argue for monopoles, inhibition of innovation (try making something like Google’s project Ara) and protect life-threatening practices of the pharma industry (why you can’t start making insulin in the USA or make a covid vaccine in the Global South?).
@stappern
No I’m not. Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly on creating video content. They do however have a right to exclusively show video content that they have the rights to.
@BraBraBra
Yes, you are. Especially that you’ve just left a specific context of copying a given video or given medical product for a very broad context of “Amazon doesn’t a monopoly on making videos”, that can’t be denied, and skipping the medical part.
That’s Motte-and-bailey fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
So if Amazon has the right to exclusively sell you video then pharma can sell you exclusively gouge you for lifesaving drugs.
Don’t get diabetes in 'murica if you have the chance.
Or, y’know… We can simply differentiate between video content and medince, since it’s not the same fuckin thing.
Nope, you tried to extrapolate my argument outside of the specific context which I’m talking in, so I simply corrected the goalposts.