The fact that I can buy a game for $70 price tag today, and still run the risk of it getting taken away from me, by the company that built it, is why I'll always pirate games.

If buying is not owning, then pirating is not stealing.

It sounds like renting

hmmm if I pay rent for this apartment does this mean I can squat in any apartment instead because if buying is not owning, squatting is not stealing

if I have to pay property taxes for a house and the house can be taken away by the government at any time,
thusly buying is not owning,
then moving onto a random plot of land is not stealing?

Property is theft anyway.

Tracing the right of property back to its source, one infallibly arrives at usurpation. However, theft is only punished because it violates the right of property; but this right is itself nothing in origin but theft

@mostr4am without property nobody would treat their stuff well

you'd have tragedy of the commons

@jestdotty
Please don't subvert the issue.
Buying or renting a Plot of land is not the same as buying a computer game. The first cannot be duplicated, sold to another, as many times as you like. the second? thats the difference.

Buying something means you own it. It can be then be resold - even at a profit. It cannot be taken back.

If you want me to rent something - there better be some serious renting contract protections in place.
Otherwise - Piracy.

https://devrant.com/rants/11049951/...

Vote for a EU law that forbids this kind of crap!

computer pirating was never stealing. it's a fucked up narrative installed by companies, that someone without money using their software without paying somehow makes them lose anything, which is false as fuck.

@iiii Even worse, in German the word that they use is "robbing".

Does "it getting taken away" mean a refund? Because it's kind of the norm nowadays. You can't really STEAL it from you, that only works one way.

@cprn yes it does "get taken away from you". That's how it is now.

@jestdotty tragedy of the common only happened among selfish brits. The rest of us can behave.

@jestdotty The status of common land in England as mentioned in Lloyd's pamphlet has been widely misunderstood.

Millions of acres were "common land", but this did not mean public land open to everybody, a popular fallacy. There was no such thing as ownerless land. Every parcel of "common" land had a legal owner, who was a private person or corporation. The owner was called the lord of the manor[171] (which, like landlord, was a legal term denoting ownership, not aristocratic status).

It was true that there were local people, called commoners, defined as those who had a legal right to use his land for some purpose of their own, typically grazing their animals. Certainly their rights were strong, because the lord was not entitled to build on his own land, or fence off any part of it,[172][173] unless he could prove he had left enough pasture for the commoners.[174] But these individuals were not the general public at large: not everyone in the vicinity was a commoner.[175]

Furthermore the commoners' right to graze the lord's land with their animals was restricted by law - precisely in order to prevent overgrazing.[176] If overgrazing did nevertheless occur, which it sometimes did, it was because of incompetent or weak land management,[177] and not because of the pressure of an unlimited right to graze, which did not exist.

@jestdotty bs. People will overconsume weather you leave it open or not. We have private society and people are still over consuming resources like crazy.

@jestdotty maybe. But the thing I'm looking at is called a wall