>Gee, that sounds a lot like somebody else's problem.
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something, but that sounds an awful lot like some sort of weird consumer entitlement (that is shared by many). I mean, how is it not the consumer's problem?
I am far from a big industry apologist, but why do many consumers of digital content believe that the content should be delivered on their own terms at a price they set, else stealing it is justifiable?
I mean it's not like air or water where you have to consume it or else die. If the industry produces a product that is woefully expensive and delivered extraordinarily inefficiently for most consumers, then isn't the correct consumer response to do without? I am trying to see the difference between this and believing that it's OK to steal a car because the manufacturer hasn't made it "affordable enough" for you.
I don't know. Maybe I'm missing something, but that sounds an awful lot like some sort of weird consumer entitlement (that is shared by many). I mean, how is it not the consumer's problem?
I am far from a big industry apologist, but why do many consumers of digital content believe that the content should be delivered on their own terms at a price they set, else stealing it is justifiable?
I mean it's not like air or water where you have to consume it or else die. If the industry produces a product that is woefully expensive and delivered extraordinarily inefficiently for most consumers, then isn't the correct consumer response to do without? I am trying to see the difference between this and believing that it's OK to steal a car because the manufacturer hasn't made it "affordable enough" for you.
What am I missing?