You are still arguing against a position I never took.
I never disputed why companies are pushing digital. I disputed the idea that losing physical media is not a loss for consumers. Rights like resale, lending, ownership independent of a single account, and preservation do not stop to matter because digital is more popular.
It’s a business.
That is an explanation for why companies make these decisions, not a defence of them. By that logic, any reduction in consumer rights would be acceptable so long as it increases profits. I don’t think that is a particularly compelling standard.
We are discussing two different questions: you are defending the business incentive, while I am discussing the consumer trade-offs. There is nothing more to add, so I will leave it at that.
mechoman444@lemmy.world 1 week ago
Wow. Just wow.
You completely dismissed what I was saying. You ignored my points and arguments, ignored me when I corrected your incorrect interpretation of what you called an anecdote, and now you’re bowing out by claiming we’re talking about two different things.
It doesn’t matter. Your position is no different than arguing that cars from the 1960s were better simply because they were easier to work on. That’s irrelevant because cars have fundamentally changed. The same applies here.
Christ. Why are there so many people like you on Lemmy?