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

  • merc@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Who cares? The point is, it’s not theft. The person who had the art still has the art, so it’s not theft.

    • floppade [he/him]@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      That is an assumption made that the artist still has the original thing that was not paid for. I understand what you’re being pedantic about. I just don’t think you’re right.

      • merc@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        What part of that statement suggests that the artist no longer has the original art? As stated, no theft occurred.