[amelius]

> So if I went to a cinema and didn't like the movie, I should be entitled for a return, right?

Not being able to un-see a movie and get your time and money back is one side of the coin. The other side is that information can be copied.

Both sides suck for one of the parties. There's no reason why one of them gets it their way, especially if it requires a contrived legal framework while the other way would require nothing at all.

[bena]

You’re not paying to enjoy the content, you’re paying to experience the content.

And as long as you had the opportunity to experience the content, you’ve gotten what you paid for.

I don’t see “I don’t like it” as a valid reason for a refund.

[amelius]

> You’re not paying to enjoy the content, you’re paying to experience the content.

Not sure about others, but I'm not.

[bena]

Your personal opinion on the matter has little weight here.

It doesn't matter what you think you're paying for or should be paying for, the fact of the matter is that you're paying for the effort people put in bringing that to you. So you are, whether you want to be or not.

[goatlover]

Would you make the same argument for a sporting, theatrical or music event? That you should be refunded if you didn't enjoy it?

[amelius]

Does it matter? Sounds to me like an apples and oranges comparison.

If I read an article in the NYT then I'm paying for what I took away from it, not for the amount of time that it allowed me to kill.