• AnnaSH@vlemmy.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I think more info was given with the examples they used though. They reveal that the problem is with copyright, where a company can both stop you from buying something from them and stop you from buying it elsewhere by still technically owning it.

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

      More if it’s something that was available but only from one specific location several years ago and it’s no longer available or incredibly difficult to find for purchase. A good example would be certain old console video games that can be emulated now but have long since gone out of print and are either unavailable for purchase as digital or insanely expensive or unavailable for original hard copy.

      There’s issues with “right to repair” too but that’s a different discussion, I think.

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

      With their original comment,

      If they make it difficult or impossible to acquire through purchase (false scarcity by removal fro market) or if despite purchasing a physical object, say a car, I can’t fully use it or repair it without special software I think an argument can be made for surfing the high seas.

      I’m only talking about the first case of the or here. I specifically pointed out the other case that you are referring to was not something I had an issue with.

      Edit: And how does this change anything? Companies aren’t any more obligated to sell people things than individuals. There are instances where it may be beneficial for a company to choose not to sell certain products, for example if a better product exists that should succeed the old product or when a certain product is later discovered to be harmful in some way.