[apparent]

> I didn't think I would need to quote more of your message, its essence is that you think these kinds of licenses can be "as good as buying" when they demonstrably have never been close to it... and it's by design.

You cut out a key part of what I said. When people do that, I don't read the rest of their really long replies. Good day.

[throw101010]

It is not a key part, I asked you multiple questions to clarify the side of your hypothetical ("if") in which these companies supposedly would act in a way they never have (sell anything close to permanent access to content their customer paid for).

That's the part I've quoted, because that's the questionable part. You just have no argument to support this idea.

So good day to you too, please, next time take a couple minutes to read the OP to see that your suggestion/idea of how things could work is exactly the opposite of reality, by design, by (among others) the two companies you suggest are acting differently and have both had to settle class-action lawsuits for the same deliberate and anti-consumer behavior.