I wouldn't ever buy the content so it's not a lost sale either. All I've done is copy a file. gasp
You're not allowed to buy the content anyways. You're only allowed to pay for the illusion of ownership, until they decide they don't want to host it anymore, and then you lose it. They're such bullshit artists that they redefine common words like "buy" and "own" in their ToS.
I believe their justification would be that you aquiring the media is a definite loss of sale vs you not subbing/buying the media is a potential sale in the future.
Edit: Not my opinion. Just imagining how they would justify it before court should it come to it.
Which is stupid, because I’ll happily buy content I like with the guarantee it’ll never be taken from me. That’s not a real risk with physical media so why should that be acceptable with digital media?
He may have been an asshole but Steve Jobs said it best:
Customers want to own their content
And to reuse the same Gaben quote often repeated here:
Piracy is an issue of service, not price.
"Customers want to own their content". It's amazing to me that execs don't grasp this? Or that they think if they stop allowing it people will stop caring, but maybe they will eventually. But it seems obvious, I've know many families that had massive dvd collections they were proud of. Bookshelves with dozens of books they probably never even read. It's just comforting to have a thing and know it's yours.
Every development in business consolidates their power and increases anxiety for the people.
My theory is they're just trying to stifle the ability to own any content to normalize the concept of not owning content, which over time will make the masses complacent.
By that same rational: My not getting a raise is a lost sale because if I had more money I would buy more. So is corporate profit a lost sale?
I wouldn't ever buy the content so it's not a lost sale either. All I've done is copy a file. gasp
You're not allowed to buy the content anyways. You're only allowed to pay for the illusion of ownership, until they decide they don't want to host it anymore, and then you lose it. They're such bullshit artists that they redefine common words like "buy" and "own" in their ToS.
I believe their justification would be that you aquiring the media is a definite loss of sale vs you not subbing/buying the media is a potential sale in the future.
Edit: Not my opinion. Just imagining how they would justify it before court should it come to it.
Which is stupid, because I’ll happily buy content I like with the guarantee it’ll never be taken from me. That’s not a real risk with physical media so why should that be acceptable with digital media?
He may have been an asshole but Steve Jobs said it best:
And to reuse the same Gaben quote often repeated here:
"Customers want to own their content". It's amazing to me that execs don't grasp this? Or that they think if they stop allowing it people will stop caring, but maybe they will eventually. But it seems obvious, I've know many families that had massive dvd collections they were proud of. Bookshelves with dozens of books they probably never even read. It's just comforting to have a thing and know it's yours.
Every development in business consolidates their power and increases anxiety for the people.
My theory is they're just trying to stifle the ability to own any content to normalize the concept of not owning content, which over time will make the masses complacent.
By that same rational: My not getting a raise is a lost sale because if I had more money I would buy more. So is corporate profit a lost sale?