Skip to main content

in reply to N. E. Felibata 👽

Yes, but it makes complete sense in many cases. If you pay for a streaming service which continuously generates (not just hosts existing) content you appreciate, then that's perfectly fair. Likewise, few physical products last forever anyway, so in effect, everything was already a rental. Of course, when the rental price exceeds what you'd pay for replacements, that's a swindle.

What I would object more strongly to is the lack of alternatives, e.g. media that's only on streaming with no hardcopy available. And of course DRM that really does mean you don't own the files you get. I don't know what the solution is (though restricting copyright period to something more like 30 years would be a good start), but I feel strongly that this isn't it.

in reply to N. E. Felibata 👽

They can remove the service at will. They can go bust. It only works as long as they are perpetuated by extortionate fees.
in reply to N. E. Felibata 👽

Which is why I object to the lack of alternatives. Continuous payment for continuous content creation is not a problem in itself, but the inability to purchase a permanent version is problematic.

That ended up being more alliterative than I intended...

in reply to N. E. Felibata 👽

In other words... I think I'm forced to agree with the meme as written. I object to
service replacing ownership. I don't object to service as an alternative to ownership, in principle.
in reply to N. E. Felibata 👽

I don't subscribe to any streaming services. I get by quite well with DVDs, CDs and paper books as and when I want them.