3 ms·

Just think of it as like paying to see a movie. I bought a $10 app once, used it for what it was for, and now several phones later, I don't know or care what's

Just think of it as like paying to see a movie. I bought a $10 app once, used it for what it was for, and now several phones later, I don't know or care what's happened to it. I got my value out of it and don't need to hoard every possession I "buy". Remember people who used to have a huge collection of video tapes or CDs? They hardly used them for anything except decoration of their living room. Hoarding old crap that you never use isn't the best use of money. Physical things can readily be taken away in divorces and debt recovery or less common things like police seizure if you're suspected of a crime. The world's richest man had half his wealth taken like that. Property rights aren't as secure as you think.

drdeca 5y ago
Wow, I really disagree with this. Or, with the implication / point? Sure, if one buys a newspaper, chances are that one won’t hold on to it for long. But it is important that one can. If one wants to cut out a story from it and hold onto it, perhaps in a scrapbook, one can do so. It is also important for archival and preservation purposes.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jnovek 5y ago
You know, many people find collecting things to be a pleasant and relaxing hobby. Perhaps, for some people, having a large collection of tapes or CDs, displaying the collection is part of the point. People gather enjoyment from different types of things. Not everyone aspires towards minimalism.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Then buy something that you can keep instead of a revocable license to use something on someone else's computer.
boolemancer 5y ago
> The world's richest man had half his wealth taken like that. If you're talking about Bezos, all of their wealth was made after they got married. The news can say it's "his wealth" but it always belonged to both of them. It's not "taking half his wealth," it's splitting their co-owned assets.
- exporectomy 5y ago
  Well, yes, exactly. It's legal. An online service denying access to a movie you bought is just them acting on their right to do so because you never had a non-revocable license to use it. It was always their property. In both cases, people don't appreciate that what they feel is theirs isn't really theirs until it gets taken away. That's the whole problem.
syshum 5y ago
So much wrong here lets start with this >The world's richest man had half his wealth taken like that I assume you are talking Bezo's divorce, you might want to actually look into that if you believe that. he did not have half his wealth taken, far far far from it. >Physical things can readily be taken away in divorces and debt recovery That is not being "taken away" in the sense you are talking about in context, for debt recovery it is being "taken away" because you did not actually own it, the lender did, you do not own it until you have paid it off. I own my car, that means I have no debt on my car... Divorce is not "taking away" it is splitting assets owned by multiple parties. Sure the process can been seen as unfair, however legally the assets is owned by both people, the courts then choose who the new owner of the asset is. That is a far cry from what we are talking about in this context. >Just think of it as like paying to see a movie. But it is not, That would be like a Netflix Subscription, where I pay to access content, not pay to own the content. Ownership and Renting is different. If they want to rent content there are methods to do that, however most people will not pay the prices they charge for a rental that is why they need to guise it as a "purchase" not a rental >Remember people who used to have a huge collection of video tapes or CDs? I used mine, then I ripped them (legally) to enjoy them on other technology... Sad you just used them for decoration. Probably should have spent money on something else you found enjoyable
- exporectomy 5y ago
  > Sad you just used them for decoration. Who?

drdeca 5y ago

Wow, I really disagree with this. Or, with the implication / point? Sure, if one buys a newspaper, chances are that one won’t hold on to it for long. But it is important that one can. If one wants to cut out a story from it and hold onto it, perhaps in a scrapbook, one can do so. It is also important for archival and preservation purposes.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

jnovek 5y ago

You know, many people find collecting things to be a pleasant and relaxing hobby. Perhaps, for some people, having a large collection of tapes or CDs, displaying the collection is part of the point. People gather enjoyment from different types of things. Not everyone aspires towards minimalism.

exporectomy 5y ago
Then buy something that you can keep instead of a revocable license to use something on someone else's computer.

boolemancer 5y ago

> The world's richest man had half his wealth taken like that. If you're talking about Bezos, all of their wealth was made after they got married. The news can say it's "his wealth" but it always belonged to both of them. It's not "taking half his wealth," it's splitting their co-owned assets.

exporectomy 5y ago
Well, yes, exactly. It's legal. An online service denying access to a movie you bought is just them acting on their right to do so because you never had a non-revocable license to use it. It was always their property. In both cases, people don't appreciate that what they feel is theirs isn't really theirs until it gets taken away. That's the whole problem.

syshum 5y ago

So much wrong here lets start with this >The world's richest man had half his wealth taken like that I assume you are talking Bezo's divorce, you might want to actually look into that if you believe that. he did not have half his wealth taken, far far far from it. >Physical things can readily be taken away in divorces and debt recovery That is not being "taken away" in the sense you are talking about in context, for debt recovery it is being "taken away" because you did not actually own it, the lender did, you do not own it until you have paid it off. I own my car, that means I have no debt on my car... Divorce is not "taking away" it is splitting assets owned by multiple parties. Sure the process can been seen as unfair, however legally the assets is owned by both people, the courts then choose who the new owner of the asset is. That is a far cry from what we are talking about in this context. >Just think of it as like paying to see a movie. But it is not, That would be like a Netflix Subscription, where I pay to access content, not pay to own the content. Ownership and Renting is different. If they want to rent content there are methods to do that, however most people will not pay the prices they charge for a rental that is why they need to guise it as a "purchase" not a rental >Remember people who used to have a huge collection of video tapes or CDs? I used mine, then I ripped them (legally) to enjoy them on other technology... Sad you just used them for decoration. Probably should have spent money on something else you found enjoyable

exporectomy 5y ago
> Sad you just used them for decoration. Who?