• Zoolander@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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!