This is what I'm talking about. You mean "inevitably," which, no. It's pretty evitable. Laws work, actually. Other mediums faced this exact same bullshit - everything from books to records to movies - and for a century, the answer was 'shut up, brand.' We can and obviously should restore that to software, the same way it still exists for, like, every other possible category of object. Even the spate of rent-seeking across other industries does not somehow make ownership impossible. It's a trend people hate, it's been stopped before without la revolucion, and it fucking obviously isn't "fundamental" if you now acknowledge things were different before.

And of course you follow up this sentence fragment with a completely unrelated demand for a total solution to a systemic obstacle described in broken English. Terse dismissal isn't "liberal brainrot." It's recognizing the bullshit asymmetry principle. You can spout this kind of single sentence assertion and demand, not even bothering to check your goddamn spelling, and then spit on any effort to address why it's just plain junk.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How exactly are other mediums preserved? Digital book liberaries are now considered illegal and many movies/shows no longer have a physical release. In addition for the majority of young people home ownership is impossible.

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago

That's three non-sequiturs in a trenchcoat. You're picking topics that sound vaguely related, and then misrepresenting them as well, with the bare fucking minimum effort. And in all likelihood you're going to scoff at this comment not addressing your argument when what this comment is doing is highlighting how your argument is broken garbage.

Really, try forming a summary of any part of that. 'Because of rising home prices, it is fundamentally impossible to own a video game.' No. 'Because ebook piracy is illegal, the medium of books are not preserved.' Barnes & Noble is a hologram or something. Also, not letting you juke to preservation, when the topic is ownership. I've got a lot of shit preserved that companies would insist I don't own. They are wrong. 'Because digital goods have engineered scarcity, you don't morally own them.' Holy shit, that's almost on topic! And yet: wildly misses the point, by not grasping how a normative argument works. As it happens - I am against the obstacles to people preserving the digital goods they bought.

The existence of those obstacles doesn't mean they don't own it. It means they're being robbed.