@clddayss@tiencha243@LucienLunaris Regardless of what it is, the rules specifically state its not allowed for right reasons. One person can buy it and then share it with the entire world for free. How many sales would they make then? One, and everyone accesses it for free. Allowing exceptions causes problems.
@clddayss@isopod25@LucienLunaris Sharing a drink isnt the same as sharing a voice pack, nor book. Even if we compare it to a physical thing aside from a voice pack, it just doesnt make sense. Lets say they split money on the standee for example, they cant cut the standee into four, so who owns it?
@clddayss@tiencha243@LucienLunaris The problem wasnt that the person wanted to share it with their friends, they wanted to find random people to split the cost with so all of them can accessit whenever. No one can stop someone from showing it to a friend in person but thats different from multiple people owning it
@clddayss@tiencha243@LucienLunaris A vp isnt a physical tangible product, its a digital media/art. Art that's specifically stated that isn't allowed to be shared. The best comparison would be other digital media such as movies. Movie services such dont allow you to share your subscription outside of household.
@clddayss@isopod25@LucienLunaris It's not about whether 1 sale is more than 0 or not. Its the principle. How is it fair for the people who paid full price? How is it fair everyone who worked so hard on it? If people are allowed to 'share', what's stopping more people from doing the same? Sales would drop.
@clddayss@tiencha243@LucienLunaris If you share food with your friends, overall everyone gets less of that shared food. Are people getting less of the pack? No. Everyone's gets the full pack for a cheaper price. It's extortion of a system. It's art and entertainment, not something physical that should be shared.
@hvairn To add to this, the op retweeted his qrt, apologising for their actions. They're mature enough to realise their mistake and learn from it. They're not bothered by the qrt.
@hvairn Its the internet, and people can do whatever they want. He's just some guy. If someone promoted piracy on his work, something he worked hard on, he has every right to call it out and hold that person accountable.
@BillenKaulitz As for the callout, sometimes its a necessity or people wont learn. The op reposted Luciens QRT and apologised for their actions. I think the fact they were promoting piracy is deeper than the fact that Luci qrt'ed like everyone else seems to be focusing on. (4/4)
@BillenKaulitz I repeat, I undertstand people should be allowed to enjoy things they want, but it shouldn't resort to 'stealing' or 'piracy'. In a real world scenario, two people aren't allowed to split the cost of a singular ticket to watch one movie. (3/4)
@Softfloofthing The person who originally posted the tweet reposted Luci's qrt of their own tweet. They themselves are remorseful for their actions and have no problem with Luci making the qrt. The person was mature enough to be held accountable for their actions.
@BelmontBites@illLvck@LucienLunaris I think the analogy of a movie ticket is a better example of what op was trying to portray. Two people can't split the cost on a singular movie ticket to watch the same movie, so why should it be allowed for a VP?
@tiencha243@LucienLunaris By your logic, allowing this to happen then encourages more people to do the same. Whats stopping lets say 20 chipping in for a voice pack, and more groups?
Overall loss.
When you go cinema, are you allowed to split the cost on a singular movie ticket to watch it with a friend?
@isopod25@LucienLunaris If you can't afford it, then dont buy it. Going as far to split it in four ways isnt fair on the people who worked hard on it. They set a fair price for the effort they spent on it. By splitting it four ways, youre essentially saying their work is worth less than what was set.