I am ashamed that I hadn’t reasoned this through given all the rubbish digital services have pulled with “purchases” being lies.

  • voracitude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    That might actually be an element of a workable argument in Court. I think it’s a very clever reframing of the precedent that allows recordings of broadcast media.

    • LemmysMum@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ve got a better argument but it won’t hold up in court. If a company is making a profit then all costs of production, operation, and provision have been covered, every single shareholder from the individual worker to the CEO to the suppliers have all been paid adequately and fairly for their contribution, the consumers with the means and ability to contribute have, and I thank them for enabling the ability to socialise access to the product for the rest of the society that propped up the corporation so that it could produce.

      If you want to argue that suppliers, producers, and workers haven’t been adequately and fairly compensated for their contribution then why is there a profit margin?

      In fact, it’s morally acceptable to socialise the benefits and production of any corporation making a profit, though the law has this pesky tendency to call it theft.