@BraBraBra
No they didn’t. Amazon still offers the copied product. They only remove it when it’s inconvenient to pay residuals.
But if you argue for intellectual “property” exclusivity, then you argue for monopoles, inhibition of innovation (try making something like Google’s project Ara) and protect life-threatening practices of the pharma industry (why you can’t start making insulin in the USA or make a covid vaccine in the Global South?).
No I’m not. Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly on creating video content. They do however have a right to exclusively show video content that they have the rights to.
@BraBraBra
Yes, you are. Especially that you’ve just left a specific context of copying a given video or given medical product for a very broad context of “Amazon doesn’t a monopoly on making videos”, that can’t be denied, and skipping the medical part.
You have removed Amazon’s right to exclusively offer their product, which is a right that they have and you do not.
deleted by creator
Yep, you have subverted the exclusivity of their product, which they do have a right to.
@BraBraBra
No they didn’t. Amazon still offers the copied product. They only remove it when it’s inconvenient to pay residuals.
But if you argue for intellectual “property” exclusivity, then you argue for monopoles, inhibition of innovation (try making something like Google’s project Ara) and protect life-threatening practices of the pharma industry (why you can’t start making insulin in the USA or make a covid vaccine in the Global South?).
@stappern
No I’m not. Amazon doesn’t have a monopoly on creating video content. They do however have a right to exclusively show video content that they have the rights to.
@BraBraBra
Yes, you are. Especially that you’ve just left a specific context of copying a given video or given medical product for a very broad context of “Amazon doesn’t a monopoly on making videos”, that can’t be denied, and skipping the medical part.
That’s Motte-and-bailey fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motte-and-bailey_fallacy
So if Amazon has the right to exclusively sell you video then pharma can sell you exclusively gouge you for lifesaving drugs.
Don’t get diabetes in 'murica if you have the chance.
Or, y’know… We can simply differentiate between video content and medince, since it’s not the same fuckin thing.
Nope, you tried to extrapolate my argument outside of the specific context which I’m talking in, so I simply corrected the goalposts.