Originally Posted by murraypaul
You have paid for the right to view the content.
It is your choice to then exercise that right or not, but you still have it.
Aside from the fact that such right is often very very limited (I can't view the content on any device of my choice, I can't transfer it to someone else, sometimes I can't even retain it if I change my hardware), my point is that media companies say that you're a thie
f if you view the content without having paid them. For instance, this is the message of the obnoxious "threat ads" that you are forced to sit through while you access your (paid!) DVDs.
Now: if I sell the right to enter my living room and look at a picture that I painted, and you use binoculars to look at it from the street without paying, are you a thief
? What are you actually stealing from me?
My point is that if such behaviour has to be considered "stealing" (as it seems to me that media companies propose), it implies that I have some additional rights on what I "bought" that the seller is not actually acknowledging. Such rights should include a (short) window after the purchase during which I can request a substitution of what I "bought".
If instead, as you say, buying content is similar to the purchase of a right to view something (like, say, a ticket to a show), why can't I do with my "right to view content" what I can do with a ticket to a show? Such as giving it to someone else, or selling it because I don't like it?
If what I buy from media companies is the "right to view some content", and I don't like such content, why am I not allowed to transfer the right to someone else? How is such a thing really a "right"?
[To be clear: here I'm pushing a concept (playing illegally obtained content = theft) to its extreme consequences to show that the concept is inconsistent even with the behavior of those who want it enforced (media companies).]