[inetknght]

> Then subscribe and pay for the service.

No thanks. Not so long as the service is owned by a corporation who does not respect users.

If I pay for something then I own it. Therefore I should receive a copy of it and can view it as many times as I like on any device I like. Youtube does not do this, so I won't pay for it. I see no value in paying for a delivery mechanism when the mechanism itself is hostile to owning the content.

I'll pay for the content by paying the producers directly if I see value in the content. I have done exactly this.

[olegious]

That limits content to the producers that have their own distribution mechanisms, which tend to be larger content creators. the small creator that uses Youtube, Twitch, etc for distribution will be the most hurt by such a policy.

Do you apply the same "If I pay for something then I own it" rule to content you consume via TV subscription services? What about if you pay to view a movie in a theater?

[inetknght]

> Do you apply the same "If I pay for something then I own it" rule to content you consume via TV subscription services?

Yes. I don't pay for TV subscription services. What little TV I watch is freely received from broadcasts and can quite simply, and legally, be recorded.

> What about if you pay to view a movie in a theater?

No. I pay for the experience of being at the theater. The movie is irrelevant. It's like paying for the experience of being at a well groomed park with staff paid to maintain the grounds. Also, I rarely go to theaters because their experiences are terrible and aren't well groomed parks; I only go with friends which is then a group activity. Group activities certainly don't convey the same type of ownership.

Quite simply: I do not believe in renting.