3 ms·
Perhaps, but what’s more likely is they asked for that right during the initial sale, and you just didn’t notice. Besides the remediation is not to pirate the
by WendyTheWillow 3y ago
Perhaps, but what’s more likely is they asked for that right during the initial sale, and you just didn’t notice.
Besides the remediation is not to pirate the copy back, that’s vigilantism. You would need to find a way to prove they took something they shouldn’t have.
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago> Besides the remediation is not to pirate the copy back, that’s vigilantism. You would need to find a way to prove they took something they shouldn’t have. That seems unbalanced to me. Why is the onus on the customer to prove that, rather than they just pirate it and the onus is on the seller to prove that they took something they shouldn't have?
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoSo guilty until proven innocent then? You see zero problems with that?
- ndsipa_pomu 3y ago> So guilty until proven innocent then? That seems to be the attitude taken towards people making copies (aka Pirates). I'm suggesting that if the company is assumed to be innocent when actually stealing by removing the customers' copies, then it would be appropriate to assume that pirates are also innocent, especially as they are not stealing anything and just making a copy which is alleged to be unauthorised.
- WendyTheWillow 3y agoNo, that is not the attitude; a pirate is guilty because they've committed an immoral act.
- justinclift 3y agoBut what about the "moral" part you've been harping on about? The consumer pressed a button labelled "Buy" and paid their money. Yet later on they've been deprived of this same said item - which they purchased - yet you're claiming it's not "moral" of them to fix the problem by alternative means. You've a strange sense of morality. :(