Well no, but in the same spirit of how you don't own a movie just because you bought the DVD? I mean there are few things you actually own after buying them

[–] Arcka@midwest.social 3 points 1 day ago

I'm not sure what you're buying, but I prioritize purchases of things I will actually own and therefore do own most of the things I buy.

[–] Cenotaph@mander.xyz 10 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I would consider it more problematic if the author of the paper got any of that and not the journal the author had to pay to be published

[–] guy@piefed.social 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

That's a different point

[–] wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not when the vast majority of music rights holders are not the artists. Then it becomes a far more apt comparison.

[–] guy@piefed.social 1 points 1 day ago

That's a question of compensation, not ownership in any case

[–] breadguy@kbin.earth 1 points 3 days ago (2 children)

what about when you rent something

[–] grey_maniac@lemmy.ca 14 points 3 days ago (1 children)

When you rent something, you can share it. You rent a car, you can have passengers. You rent an apartment, you can have visitors. You rent a tool, you can lend it to your neighbour.

[–] breadguy@kbin.earth 1 points 2 days ago

kind of like when you rent movies or shows you can watch them with your friends? this is also barely relevant to the paying to rent vs own argument

[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Then it's rent and not bought. That shitty excuse "akshualy you only bought the license, can't do what you want with it" is just abuse, because the buyer never gets clearly informed beforehand.

[–] breadguy@kbin.earth 2 points 2 days ago

if we're still talking about spotify it's pretty clear you are not actually purchasing all of music for $15