From my understanding theft has always been to take something and after the other party doesn't have it anymore. This never applied to piracy.
For example: I used to pirate games back in school as I didn't have the money to buy them. So there is no financial loss for the company. Yet they still frame it as bank robbery or something. "You wouldn't download a car"
Hollywood was so adamant about "not downloading a car".
That was a meme. The original ads were always "you wouldn't steal a car". Someone doctored a screenshot from the ad as a joke and now there are a whole bunch of people who think the ads actually said that.
Thepiratebay guy made an art project at one point that was a Raspberry Pi that did nothing but copy one song over and over again while keeping a running tally on a display of how much value it had "stolen" from the record industry by doing so.
Right, but I'm saying "piracy" has the same problem as "theft". Copyright infringement is even less related to the traditional meaning of piracy than it is to theft.
The exec said that in order for subscription gaming to be profitable, then customers would have to be okay with not owning their games. It was posed more of a hypothetical instead of a sinister plan. Now would they prefer subscription model? Absolutely. Do they expect it to work rn? The exec doesn't think so.
Next year Ubisoft is complaining how people start a subscription just before the holiday and cancel after the holiday, with people playing dozens of games in a short period. This destroys their cash flows and shows great disrespect for the developers.
Copyright itself was never ownership to begin with, and ideas were never property. Copyright is nothing more than a means an end, with the end being to enrich the Public Domain. It exists for the express purpose "to Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" and nothing else.
It has been pretended by some (and in England especially) that inventors have a natural and exclusive right to their inventions; & not merely for their own lives, but inheritable to their heirs. but while it is a moot question whether the origin of any kind of property is derived from nature at all, it would be singular to admit a natural, and even an hereditary right to inventions. it is agreed by those who have seriously considered the subject, that no individual has, of natural right, a separate property in an acre of land, for instance. by an universal law indeed, whatever, whether fixed or moveable, belongs to all men equally and in common, is the property, for the moment, of him who occupies it; but when he relinquishes the occupation the property goes with it. stable ownership is the gift of social law, and is given late in the progress of society. it would be curious then if an idea, the fugitive fermentation of an individual brain, could, of natural right, be claimed in exclusive and stable property. if nature has made any one thing less susceptible, than all others, of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an Idea; which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the reciever cannot dispossess himself of it. it’s peculiar character too is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. he who recieves an idea from me, recieves instruction himself, without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, recieves light without darkening me. that ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benvolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. inventions then cannot in nature be a subject of property. society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility. but this may, or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.
Also, is that Jefferson’s original capitalization? I never would have figured him for the type to think he’s too cool for normal capitalization rules.
Here's a picture of it (the first page, anyway, which isn't the same as the part I quoted). It appears that he, indeed, wasn't in the habit of capitalizing the first word of sentences. 'Course, it was so long ago that I'm not sure if it really was a normal rule at the time (especially for handwritten correspondence, as opposed to typeset publications).
Yeah, I know things like capitalization and punctuation were a lot more idiosyncratic at the time, but I can't recall ever seeing that particular quirk before in historical writing.
I understand the slogan and why it is used, but I have never had any moral qualms about pirating the intellectual property of a billion-dollar corporation, call me weird.
Basically when it comes to streaming services, what are you paying for? You aren't getting anything except temporary access that can be revoked at any time. What the slogan is saying is pretty simple in that regard: if we aren't buying anything but access, then you aren't stealing when sailing the seas
I completely agree, what I'm saying is that even if I could actually buy it, or when this was possible, I would still not have ethical problems with "sailing the seas" nor do I think anyone should have those problems, I say again, the intellectual property belongs to billion-dollar companies
If they're making a profit then the product and distribution has been paid for by those with means, all costs have been covered, all employees, producers and suppliers have been paid an adequate and fair compensation for their contribution.
because they use their bargaining power to pay something not even remotely close to what a rational person would consider fair, not even to those who actually produce what they market (I'm talking about musicians, film scriptwriters or software developers) and even more so all employees, producers and suppliers
Subscription models are great when they're not trying to fuck you. There are upsides and downsides, but if you have options between subscribing with a one-click unsub or buying games and you choose subscribe, it might just be for good reason.
I got Game Pass because I wasn't sure I'd like Starfield. I now have 20 games installed (including Starfield) and just pause game pass when work is too busy for me to get value out of it. I'm at about $70 total spend. Yeah that's more than starfield, but I've enjoyed close to $500 in games, some of which I either wouldn't have bought and love or WOULD have bought and am glad I didn't.
But if somebody makes you pay $20/mo for Dildo Simulator, and colors and sizes are paid DLC, then they're just trying to fuck you.
Yeah, but if you had bought starfield at full retail price there's a pretty good chance you'd have regrets about it.
I absolutely don't mind spending a couple bucks a month to try a bunch of games. If there's something I like and want to play a lot, I'll eventually buy it.
You want to really own your game, not just a license, buy on gog. Not on Steam, not on Epic, not on uplay and whatever else.
Why is everyone so pissed at Ubisoft, they just say what's practise for years now! And sometimes counter Ubisoft by quoting Gabe Newell, what the fuck? He made not owning games popular!
There's a big difference between having to pay a monthly subscription to play a game and just having to use steam to launch it after a one time payment.
Steam can just bar you from playing those games though if they so choose. The only thing preventing that is Gabe. But that guy will have to retire some day.
I know what you mean, but you still don't own the game, you have permission to play it, at least as long as the platform lets you or it closes. For now it's all good, but when the time comes people will loose accounts worth thousands of bucks.
Might have to visit some torrent sites anyway. Maybe I can find someone who likes Ubisoft games but can't afford them and doesn't know how to acquire them...
Everyone here will balk and biych about it and rightly so, but this will happen, unfortunately. Why? Because Ubisoft is on the path of enshittification, and most of humanity are dumb and don't care and will walk willingly like sheep to the slaughter.
No it's not. I'm the guy who started this quote and it was on a Louis Rossmann video about a company who broke their customers' lifetime licenses to make them switch to their subscription model.
If you purchase it and they can still take it away from you at will, it isn’t something that can be owned. If it isn’t something that can be owned, piracy isn’t stealing because for it to be stealing somebody would have to own it.
Getting a taxi and then running off without paying is still stealing, even though there's no theft of an actual product involved. There have always been legal ramifications for theft of services, and this is no different.
For the record I'm not shilling for Ubisoft here. They can eat a bag of dicks. I just think the point the meme is making is based on a false premise.
The term “If purchase isn’t ownership” has no relationship to the article quote. The suggestion of not owning games refers to having subscription-based access to them; as of yet only ever offered as a suggested alternative to purchasing games, which is still very much an option.
These memes are always using terribly structured logic to justify piracy.
The suggestion of not owning games refers to having subscription-based access to them; as of yet only ever offered as a suggested alternative to purchasing games, which is still very much an option.
That is exactly the problem though. How long will it be until the subscription model is no longer an option but the only option? Because i would bet money on that being the actual goal.
Look at the reaction in these comments. Even if some games get attention from Game Pass, each individual game gets its renown through major fans that play 50 hours a month. What would any of these publishers have to gain from suddenly denying that revenue flow for JUST the people subscribing? Even a single game attempting that model would likely receive major backlash.
Regardless, I’m going to continue judging memes and arguments like these as pathetic - as they’re already fully assuming at-present a situation we haven’t even started to move towards.
How have we not started moving towards it when every company is trying their damnedest to get subscriptions? Look at new vehicles, they are paywalling features on an already purchased car, I bet you would have "bet against this" too before it happened. The problem is companies are slowly changing things over time hoping consumers don't notice until it's too late.
"Publishers will remove purchase options" does not follow from "Publishers want to add subscription options". The logic is not there.
If you can name more than a few games that removed their option for purchase due to something other than music licensing problems, that suggest it's part of a move to encourage people to use subscriptions, you have a case. Otherwise, it's fantasy. I can't even think of a single game that's done that.
He's basically threatening to move to a subscription-instead-of-purchase model. They've toyed with this idea for years, and have been trying to normalize it.
These memes are always using terribly structured logic to justify piracy.
Agreed. Nobody needs to justify piracy. Piracy is automatically justified because the reasons people justified banning piracy were bad-faith. Digital IP is theft whose only purpose has failed.
Sure? Stealing from a rental car company is still theft. If software piracy was theft, making that software a rental instead of a purchase doesn't change that fact. You would still be stealing something.
Knowledge theft just can't be compared with object theft like that. If you had a device that could perfectly replicate a car just by sitting in it, that would be closer.
Alternatively, car companies that can grenade your car's engine if you drive somewhere they don't like, or otherwise prevent you from using the car, while still asking for $50k+.
None of that has to do with the definitional distinction the meme is making. I've already said it's not actual theft, my problem is that the argument presented is bad. Even if a customer transaction does not confer ownership, it is possible to steal the thing transacted upon. So piracy WOULD still be theft, if it was theft in the first place. The argument doesn't work, unrelated to whether or not I agree with the conclusion.
Alternatively, car companies that can grenade your car's engine if you drive somewhere they don't like, or otherwise prevent you from using the car, while still asking for $50k+.
Any car that exists can be stolen. That describes a car I wouldn't want to buy or rent, it does not describe a car which could be taken without that taking being theft.
A device that destroys itself when stolen can't be stolen successfully. The metaphor still fails somewhat as making a new car isn't free.
I think I see your point though; theft isn't defined by ownership, so ownership status is not a case for theft (although they do tend to be caused by the same things). "If the plane wasn't flying, then I didn't crash"; crashing is not defined by flight worthiness, or even being in the air.
The logic of the idiom is in the simile though, "buying ≠ owning" has the same logical flaw; there are lots of things we buy that can't be owned, chiefly services. Yet the expectation of the saying is that buying to own is not owning. Perhaps more explicit would be "If not giving what was payed for isn't stealing, then taking what should be given isn't stealing either", or "If you take our right to own, we'll take your right to own".
Like most sayings, being snappy is more useful that being correct, but there's also an important meaning there if we take the snap out of it.
If someone invented a machine that could print out cars for cents on the dollar, that wouldn’t make stealing those cars fair; especially if inventing that machine cost him billions of dollars.
In fact that’s reasonably close to the case for certain kinds of food - the costs for producing them are infinitesimal, but the logistics of researching that development process, making storefronts, advertising them, and having staff on hand to process the purchase add up. Yet that doesn’t stop some people from pointing to that production cost as reason to shoplift.
Memes like this have always been backwards justification to excuse piracy.
Ubisoft needs to get comfortable with the idea of people not buying their games then 😝
you mean renting 🦖
I think they already are. That's kind of the point of that guy's job.
I haven't even needed to pirate a game in decades. Does it still work the same way?
On PC? Yes. On consoles? Depends on the console
📟🏇🚣🪴🐚🦎🫒🌞🗿💀🤦🌼⏏️🪢
I am the guy who started this meme! Praise me!
🛐🛐🛐
You are a genius 🙏
There you go! Note added. You shall be remembered henceforth.
Aww yeah! I'm mostly just stoked that I started a thing. 😁
From my understanding theft has always been to take something and after the other party doesn't have it anymore. This never applied to piracy.
For example: I used to pirate games back in school as I didn't have the money to buy them. So there is no financial loss for the company. Yet they still frame it as bank robbery or something. "You wouldn't download a car"
I would download so many cars.
Back when I played GTA 4 I DID download so many cars.
https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:476016
Hollywood was so adamant about "not downloading a car".
Now they are the ones downloading actors.
That was a meme. The original ads were always "you wouldn't steal a car". Someone doctored a screenshot from the ad as a joke and now there are a whole bunch of people who think the ads actually said that.
You wouldn't steal a handbag; you wouldn't steal a car; ...
You wouldn’t steal a baby…
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
you wouldn't steal a car
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
YoU WouLDn'T DoWnLOad a BEAR
It's always projection...
Its based on the false assumption that you would actually buy every single piece of media if you didn't chose to copy it.
It's all fake and people accept it. Such is the world.
Thepiratebay guy made an art project at one point that was a Raspberry Pi that did nothing but copy one song over and over again while keeping a running tally on a display of how much value it had "stolen" from the record industry by doing so.
I not only would, I did!
Didn't it? 🏴☠️
It never applied to copyright infringement, which is often disparaged as "piracy."
Right, but I'm saying "piracy" has the same problem as "theft". Copyright infringement is even less related to the traditional meaning of piracy than it is to theft.
If I had a penny for every time I saw this quote decontextualised. I'd have enough to buy a Ubisoft game.
Which is kinda sad that it's been that often.
Too bad you won't own it after buying it!
Thank you Valve
(For the Gamers reading. I am making reference to the fact that steam has already got gamers used to not owning their games)
Listen, I'm super smart and I definitely know what the right context is, but could you explain it for our dumber friends here?
The exec said that in order for subscription gaming to be profitable, then customers would have to be okay with not owning their games. It was posed more of a hypothetical instead of a sinister plan. Now would they prefer subscription model? Absolutely. Do they expect it to work rn? The exec doesn't think so.
Next year Ubisoft is complaining how people start a subscription just before the holiday and cancel after the holiday, with people playing dozens of games in a short period. This destroys their cash flows and shows great disrespect for the developers.
The developers are already paid, and they only do what they are told to do.
How do you see the future?
Copyright itself was never ownership to begin with, and ideas were never property. Copyright is nothing more than a means an end, with the end being to enrich the Public Domain. It exists for the express purpose "to Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" and nothing else.
This is the moral basis for the Copyright Clause, in Thomas Jefferson's own words:
Holy shit, mic drop.
Also, is that Jefferson's original capitalization? I never would have figured him for the type to think he's too cool for normal capitalization rules.
Here's a picture of it (the first page, anyway, which isn't the same as the part I quoted). It appears that he, indeed, wasn't in the habit of capitalizing the first word of sentences. 'Course, it was so long ago that I'm not sure if it really was a normal rule at the time (especially for handwritten correspondence, as opposed to typeset publications).
Yeah, I know things like capitalization and punctuation were a lot more idiosyncratic at the time, but I can't recall ever seeing that particular quirk before in historical writing.
It sounds like they are saying get comfortable with piracy. How else would you want to play a game without owning it?
I understand the slogan and why it is used, but I have never had any moral qualms about pirating the intellectual property of a billion-dollar corporation, call me weird.
You're weird.
I agree with you completely, just complying with your request.
Basically when it comes to streaming services, what are you paying for? You aren't getting anything except temporary access that can be revoked at any time. What the slogan is saying is pretty simple in that regard: if we aren't buying anything but access, then you aren't stealing when sailing the seas
I completely agree, what I'm saying is that even if I could actually buy it, or when this was possible, I would still not have ethical problems with "sailing the seas" nor do I think anyone should have those problems, I say again, the intellectual property belongs to billion-dollar companies
If they're making a profit then the product and distribution has been paid for by those with means, all costs have been covered, all employees, producers and suppliers have been paid an adequate and fair compensation for their contribution.
"adequate and fair compensation", I assume you are joking
If it's not adequate and fair why is there a profit margin?
because they use their bargaining power to pay something not even remotely close to what a rational person would consider fair, not even to those who actually produce what they market (I'm talking about musicians, film scriptwriters or software developers) and even more so all employees, producers and suppliers
Sounds like a problem. Maybe you should fix it.
Eh... piracy wasn't theft even before this, because you're not taking it away from someone else.
Yes please ubisoft make another generic assassin's creed game that is like all the others and charge me for it on a subscription based model.
This simulation of a simulation of a game is as important as office365 with teams at least.
I think they have a solid business case there, congrats ubi.
I can't wait to find towers to unlock the map collectathon.
I still really want to play Black Flag, ngl. I think I have a weakness for sea songs. Maybe I should play more Sea of Thieves instead.
"commies don't want you to even own your toothbrush"
Ubisoft needs to "get comfortable" with gamers not giving them any money.
I like game pass as an option for playing games that I don't want to spend $60 on. But I also want the option to own it forever.
Subscription models are great when they're not trying to fuck you. There are upsides and downsides, but if you have options between subscribing with a one-click unsub or buying games and you choose subscribe, it might just be for good reason.
I got Game Pass because I wasn't sure I'd like Starfield. I now have 20 games installed (including Starfield) and just pause game pass when work is too busy for me to get value out of it. I'm at about $70 total spend. Yeah that's more than starfield, but I've enjoyed close to $500 in games, some of which I either wouldn't have bought and love or WOULD have bought and am glad I didn't.
But if somebody makes you pay $20/mo for Dildo Simulator, and colors and sizes are paid DLC, then they're just trying to fuck you.
Yeah, but if you had bought starfield at full retail price there's a pretty good chance you'd have regrets about it.
I absolutely don't mind spending a couple bucks a month to try a bunch of games. If there's something I like and want to play a lot, I'll eventually buy it.
Shouts at Ubisoft exec: "Then I'll just pirate all your games! Fuck you, Ubisoft!"
I mean Ubisoft doesn't make good games who gives a shit.
You want to really own your game, not just a license, buy on gog. Not on Steam, not on Epic, not on uplay and whatever else.
Why is everyone so pissed at Ubisoft, they just say what's practise for years now! And sometimes counter Ubisoft by quoting Gabe Newell, what the fuck? He made not owning games popular!
There's a big difference between having to pay a monthly subscription to play a game and just having to use steam to launch it after a one time payment.
Steam can just bar you from playing those games though if they so choose. The only thing preventing that is Gabe. But that guy will have to retire some day.
You do not own shit on Steam.
Except they really can't. I'll get whatever game I like even after they tell me no.
I know what you mean, but you still don't own the game, you have permission to play it, at least as long as the platform lets you or it closes. For now it's all good, but when the time comes people will loose accounts worth thousands of bucks.
Who has to pay a monthly subscription to play a game? When? How?
Then they should aswell
Wtf is a director of subscriptions
A representation of everything that's wrong with the modern tech industry...
I'm not much of a gamer anymore...
Might have to visit some torrent sites anyway. Maybe I can find someone who likes Ubisoft games but can't afford them and doesn't know how to acquire them...
If purchase isn't ownership,
Then it's time for communusm
EDIT: forgot to type time
Never was
Hey I've seen this one before!
Everyone here will balk and biych about it and rightly so, but this will happen, unfortunately. Why? Because Ubisoft is on the path of enshittification, and most of humanity are dumb and don't care and will walk willingly like sheep to the slaughter.
Can someone explain the logic behind this? Other than "they say that, so we get to say this!"
The original context of this quote. Which has suspiciously been removed, is in reference to subscription models taking off.
The original quote is more along the line of "a subscription model isn't feasible unless gamers get used to the idea of not owning their games"
So really any line of logic is flawed because it misrepresents the original comment.
No it's not. I'm the guy who started this quote and it was on a Louis Rossmann video about a company who broke their customers' lifetime licenses to make them switch to their subscription model.
This is the video: https://youtu.be/tkmOddW1vu8?si=jAqmaOjzwYvdgYap
I'm technol33t.
https://lemmy.world/post/1098344
I'm talking about the Ubisoft quote.
Ohhh that tracks.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/tkmOddW1vu8?si=jAqmaOjzwYvdgYap
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
If you purchase it and they can still take it away from you at will, it isn’t something that can be owned. If it isn’t something that can be owned, piracy isn’t stealing because for it to be stealing somebody would have to own it.
That only applies to products though.
Getting a taxi and then running off without paying is still stealing, even though there's no theft of an actual product involved. There have always been legal ramifications for theft of services, and this is no different.
For the record I'm not shilling for Ubisoft here. They can eat a bag of dicks. I just think the point the meme is making is based on a false premise.
My original quote was in reference to a company who broke their customers' lifetime licenses to force them into a subscription model.
This is the video.
https://youtu.be/tkmOddW1vu8?si=jAqmaOjzwYvdgYap
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://piped.video/tkmOddW1vu8?si=jAqmaOjzwYvdgYap
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
The term “If purchase isn’t ownership” has no relationship to the article quote. The suggestion of not owning games refers to having subscription-based access to them; as of yet only ever offered as a suggested alternative to purchasing games, which is still very much an option.
These memes are always using terribly structured logic to justify piracy.
That is exactly the problem though. How long will it be until the subscription model is no longer an option but the only option? Because i would bet money on that being the actual goal.
That is already the case for many mobile games, so why the person you're talking to doesn't think it will happen overall, I'm not sure.
And I would bet money against that.
Look at the reaction in these comments. Even if some games get attention from Game Pass, each individual game gets its renown through major fans that play 50 hours a month. What would any of these publishers have to gain from suddenly denying that revenue flow for JUST the people subscribing? Even a single game attempting that model would likely receive major backlash.
Regardless, I’m going to continue judging memes and arguments like these as pathetic - as they’re already fully assuming at-present a situation we haven’t even started to move towards.
How have we not started moving towards it when every company is trying their damnedest to get subscriptions? Look at new vehicles, they are paywalling features on an already purchased car, I bet you would have "bet against this" too before it happened. The problem is companies are slowly changing things over time hoping consumers don't notice until it's too late.
"Publishers will remove purchase options" does not follow from "Publishers want to add subscription options". The logic is not there.
If you can name more than a few games that removed their option for purchase due to something other than music licensing problems, that suggest it's part of a move to encourage people to use subscriptions, you have a case. Otherwise, it's fantasy. I can't even think of a single game that's done that.
I can live with that, I mean, subscription for games, but once a game enters the catalog, it can never be removed.
He's basically threatening to move to a subscription-instead-of-purchase model. They've toyed with this idea for years, and have been trying to normalize it.
Agreed. Nobody needs to justify piracy. Piracy is automatically justified because the reasons people justified banning piracy were bad-faith. Digital IP is theft whose only purpose has failed.
I just borrow my games for a little while then I set them free.. like a butterfly if you will...
Software piracy isn't theft because you're not taking anything away from someone else.
That said, this meme makes no sense. You don't own a car you rent. The car can still be stolen.
But not from the person renting it.
Sure? Stealing from a rental car company is still theft. If software piracy was theft, making that software a rental instead of a purchase doesn't change that fact. You would still be stealing something.
Knowledge theft just can't be compared with object theft like that. If you had a device that could perfectly replicate a car just by sitting in it, that would be closer.
Alternatively, car companies that can grenade your car's engine if you drive somewhere they don't like, or otherwise prevent you from using the car, while still asking for $50k+.
None of that has to do with the definitional distinction the meme is making. I've already said it's not actual theft, my problem is that the argument presented is bad. Even if a customer transaction does not confer ownership, it is possible to steal the thing transacted upon. So piracy WOULD still be theft, if it was theft in the first place. The argument doesn't work, unrelated to whether or not I agree with the conclusion.
Any car that exists can be stolen. That describes a car I wouldn't want to buy or rent, it does not describe a car which could be taken without that taking being theft.
A device that destroys itself when stolen can't be stolen successfully. The metaphor still fails somewhat as making a new car isn't free.
I think I see your point though; theft isn't defined by ownership, so ownership status is not a case for theft (although they do tend to be caused by the same things). "If the plane wasn't flying, then I didn't crash"; crashing is not defined by flight worthiness, or even being in the air.
The logic of the idiom is in the simile though, "buying ≠ owning" has the same logical flaw; there are lots of things we buy that can't be owned, chiefly services. Yet the expectation of the saying is that buying to own is not owning. Perhaps more explicit would be "If not giving what was payed for isn't stealing, then taking what should be given isn't stealing either", or "If you take our right to own, we'll take your right to own".
Like most sayings, being snappy is more useful that being correct, but there's also an important meaning there if we take the snap out of it.
If someone invented a machine that could print out cars for cents on the dollar, that wouldn’t make stealing those cars fair; especially if inventing that machine cost him billions of dollars.
In fact that’s reasonably close to the case for certain kinds of food - the costs for producing them are infinitesimal, but the logistics of researching that development process, making storefronts, advertising them, and having staff on hand to process the purchase add up. Yet that doesn’t stop some people from pointing to that production cost as reason to shoplift.
Memes like this have always been backwards justification to excuse piracy.