> That's likely because you're viewing it through a different lens than the person you're replying to

Is that lens "being a creator and wanting my copyrights to be honored too?"

.

> From a moral view, if you agree on what purchase means

There's no need to "agree" on what purchase means. It just has a meaning. That meaning doesn't come from either of us. If you disagree, you're simply wrong. The law and the definitions of words are not a matter of being negotiated in online comments, even though online comments misunderstanding descriptivism might have told you that they were.

This is really just a bunch of self serving word salad, redefining words so that you can steal things and pretend you're somehow fighting back against Elsevier, who is in no way involved in this

If you've gotten to the point of trying to argue by framing everything in terms of whether someone agrees with an obviously incorrect definition of a word, then I'm not sure why you spent the time.

You seem to have lost track of the story, besides. The discussion wasn't actually about pirating what was already paid for. That's obviously fine, and something I myself have had to do. The story was "the reason I pirate is that in theory this could happen." Those two positions are leagues apart.

.

> There are a lot of people that do not believe that companies should be able to use a word and just define it as meaning something totally different in their specific case

Literally what you're doing in your comment, mister "if you agree on what means," but okay

Anyway, companies actually cannot do this, and if you believe that they can, try asking a lawyer about it. I'd ask you to show me a single case in American history where big-spooky-they've done this, but I know you can't, so I'm not going to waste the time. If you offer something for free then redefine free to mean "costs $100," then the court will just say you don't get your $100, and get a fine for false advertising. I have no idea why you thought this was a thing.

You spend an awful lot of time attempting to use what generic people believe as a way to argue.

Generic people believe in homeopathy, chiropracty, and astrology, too. Belief isn't a valid foundation for a discussion of this form, even if you had evidence of it, which you do not.

.

> For such a person, the OP's statements are internally consistent.

Manson was internally consistent too. Who cares? Internal consistency was never challenged and isn't relevant. (This seems like pleading for intellectual authority, frankly.)

This is simple.

1. Parent poster is trying to justify taking things that aren't free without paying for them, by pointing fingers at other groups and saying "well this one non-music publishing entity did something bad first, so the whole music purchasing system should be refused"

2. You've confused that with recovering things you paid for and can no longer access through one authority, which is actually not piracy or even illegal at all under American law, obviously not immoral, and something I would never bother arguing against (something I can't imagine anyone ever arguing against)

3. You need to explain to me that there's nothing wrong with the thing that is very obviously not what I was talking about

Okay, cool, thanks for your help