Perhaps the comment entirely about how we don’t truly own anything digital that EXPLICITLY states “I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership” isn’t the best place to be a stout contrarian for no reason other than to puff your chest with an “um, ackchyually?”

I used common language commonly used to describe the state of having paid for a product because “but you’ve paid for a digital license to access said content which offers no sense of ownership which can be revoked at any time for any reason” is tedious and pointless.

The intent, purpose, and meaning of my content is clear. You’ve added nothing to the conversation, I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

“Of course I’m aware of the legal reality of content ownership”

How did you read this sentence then not get the implication he meant ‘own a license than can be revoked’ when he then used the word own? This is lemmy, everyone knows that implication for digital “ownership”