Hacker News Reader

Comment by autoexec | Hacker News Reader

> They are destroying books that they bought. It should not be controversial that part of ownership is decided how to dispose of the owned object.

By your reasoning, if I could afford to buy every surviving painting by Van Gogh and Rembrandt and I burned them in a bon fire I wouldn't be taking anything from human culture and nobody should care at all about what I do with my belongings.

Destroying something that is rare or one of a kind and valuable does matter. Doing it so that you can exclusively profit off of charging people for software that regurgitates lossy and error filled versions of what was lost makes it even worse.

View on HN

In your scenario, the bug is letting someone control all of that in a private collection. But that scenario is completely divorced from what is actually happening, so I don't think it's worth discussing too deeply here.

If you actually object to the concept that people that own a physical object get to decide how to dispose of it, that would be an interesting discussion to have because it would fly in the face of property ownership rights.

Why such a blinkered argument, I own the soda can I just drank but it is still, arguably, wrong of me to chuck it in the trash instead of the recycle bin. Yes, you have the "right" to dispose of things you own but there's more to what's right than that. There's human decency, consideration, awareness of the environment, the spirit of the laws, cases the laws were not designed for in mind etc.

Like, tell your mother or HS teacher you decided not to recycle because you own your trash. See how well that clever argument goes.

if the recyclers really think the aluminum in that can is valuable, theyll fush it out if the garbage or the dump to get it.

putting that sorting and disposal on end customers was a business way of offloading their making single use trash problems on somebody else.

point any blame for cans in the trash where it belongs - can makers

you should indeed be able to, but maybe buying art shouldn't be allowed at all, with people only being allowed digital recreations.

why do you need more than a picture of the rembrandt? there's so much good artwork easily available that the rembrandt is only worth money because hoity toity people want to store their money in it and in the future sell it again

More so because their digital copy increases in value because of the destruction.

Only in a world where we can't make new copies, which does not seem to be this world.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com