Even if it works… it would not label him as smart, just unreasonably powerful (money full)

In his mind (to clarify)

I think illigal means dissenting (or brown)…

Killing protesters is too visible and often sparks outrage. Quietly deporting them or using behind-the-scenes methods to remove them is more discreet and allows the agenda to progress with less resistance.

So by your logic, if you pay for a stripper, you should own her for life? Or does paying for a temporary service not suddenly mean ‘ownership’ applies to everything?

Buying digital media means paying for licensed access (and to be fair, I miss buying the physical media because I got to keep it without interference, It doesn’t change anything about lost revenue), just like buying a ticket to a concert or hiring entertainment for a night. That doesn’t mean you ‘own’ the performer or the venue—it means you paid for the experience.

Piracy, meanwhile, is just skipping the payment entirely. Hope that helps!

Just to be clear, I don’t actually care about piracy. Do it or don’t, that’s your business. But saying piracy doesn’t cause losses is just wrong.

You just explained that when piracy was inconvenient, people chose to pay for a better service. That means they had money to spend but were pirating instead—until a better legal option came along. That alone proves piracy takes money away from creators.

And your concert take? Now we’re at ‘stealing is fine as long as nobody makes a big deal about it.’ If sneaking in isn’t theft, does that mean shoplifting is fine too as long as the store doesn’t notice?

Keep going, or don’t—this is an imperfect analogy, I was just trying to help you see why you are so staggeringly wrong

So you’re admitting that when given an easy, affordable way to access media, people chose to pay rather than pirate? Congratulations, you just proved my point.

The fact that convenience was a key factor doesn’t change the reality that these services turned former pirates into paying customers. If piracy wasn’t causing financial harm, and if people truly ‘weren’t going to buy it anyway,’ then streaming services wouldn’t have reclaimed those users as paying subscribers.

As for your last line—sounds like you cut off mid-thought. You were about to say something profound about why sneaking into a concert isn’t theft? Go on, I could use the laugh

“We were never going to buy it anyway” is a weak argument, considering that the explosion of Netflix, Crunchyroll, and other streaming services (before they turned to shit) proves otherwise.

If piracy didn’t cause financial harm, why did legal streaming platforms dramatically reduce piracy rates when they offered a convenient alternative? The answer is simple: People do pay when given the right option.

And the “it doesn’t destroy stock” excuse? That’s like saying sneaking into a concert isn’t theft because the band still plays for everyone else. It’s still taking something without paying for it.

? It is exactly how piracy works? What do you mean?

If you look at the screenshot you can see the bill is $95

You write like you are disagreeing with something in this post, in your own small pathetic way. But I fail to see what part of the post you are disagreeing with

Yes? Why the /s?

You should just ask your mom to communicate her thoughts better

Maybe your decades of failure is just obvious to everyone but you