Actually I don’t think it is. They’d have a license to use it in perpetuity but if they claimed legal ownership then they’d be responsible for what you post.

They get the benefits of ownership without any of the responsibility.

I mean was there any doubt that what happened to the CEO was murder? Like whether or not it was justified it still was murder. I’m not shedding a tear for it though, too busy reflecting on the thousands dead from his denial of healthcare.

The issue I take is that when we abstract murder by a few degrees then we just call it business. The CEO can sign a form that will result in the deaths of 1500 people and it’s fine but you hire a hitman and you’re guilty. At what point is the line drawn?

If I construct a rube goldberg machine that results in a gun being fired then am I responsible? What if that machine drops a pachinko puck that results in the gun being fired 50% of the time? What if I muck about with someone’s food and increase their risk of cancer by 4%?

This is a genuine question I’d love an answer to.

I don’t get it? It couldn’t have been Luigi. He was busy working at a Jay St. Videogames all day.

Hot take:

Piracy is virtually always justified. By pirating you are simply opting out of transferring wealth from consumer to big business which could be seen as a redistribution of wealth (however small) from rich to poor.

Exceptions would be indie Devs or filmmakers for which you would have more disposable income to support if you saved your money by pirating big budget films/games/software.