• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    If I snap the that disc, I’ve done nothing at all to the file, nor the content.

    This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method. That’s the entire distinction between this physical media and the intangible product on the disc. You’re continuing to be dishonest.

    If you want to be consistent, then you’d have to assert that if that DVD becomes scratched and no longer plays, I have to delete my backup otherwise I’m stealing.

    I do not have to assert any such thing. You’ve already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That’s not what my argument is.

    No, it’s the red herring you keep pushing.

    Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.

    • null@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      This is just a flat-out lie. If you snap the disc, the file is gone unless you previously copied it through some other method.

      Again, ridiculous. The file is on the distribution company’s sever. A copy of that file has been destroyed. Extremely key distinction.

      I do not have to assert any such thing. You’ve already paid for the content. You can do whatever you want with it for your own personal use. That’s not what my argument is.

      Then you’re proving my point that you’ve paid for the rights to a copy of that file, and the physical medium you got it on is irrelevant. You can’t have it both ways.

      Ok. Ignoring it yet again. Either address it or stop arguing.

      I guess you’re making up your own definition for ignoring too. That’s gotta make things hard.

      • Zoolander@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Nonsense. You’re just continuing to be dishonest. You do not have access to their server. You destroyed the product you have. This is like saying that if you took a television and destroyed it that the TV isn’t gone because there are more TVs in the manufacturer’s warehouse.

        Then you’re proving my point that you’ve paid for the rights to a copy of that file

        No, I’m not. That’s not my argument so I’m not proving anything. You’re arguing a straw man and not what I’ve actually said.

        I guess you’re making up your own definition for ignoring too.

        Ok, well… bye.

        • null@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          You do not have access to their server.

          Doesn’t matter, the file still exists and has not been destroyed.

          You destroyed the product you have.

          I destroyed the disc. But if I made a backup, which you agreed is perfectly fine to do, then I still have a copy of the file.

          This is like saying that if you took a television and destroyed it that the TV isn’t gone because there are more TVs in the manufacturer’s warehouse.

          Ridiculous. I can’t make a digital backup of a TV. Those scenarios are not comparable at all.

          No, I’m not. That’s not my argument so I’m not proving anything. You’re arguing a straw man and not what I’ve actually said.

          Can’t refute the argument? Just call it a strawman!

          You said that borrowing a DVD and consuming the content isn’t stealing, while downloading a copy of it and consuming it is. I proved that to be logically inconsistent. Nothing about that is a strawman.

          Ok, well… bye.

          Better luck next time!