Exactly. It doesn't matter how (un)popular it is, it doesn't matter if you personally haven't heard of it (I hadn't heard of this before either), there's lots of great art or literature or any other form of media out there you or me haven't heard of and may never hear of but that nevertheless is still beloved by other people, sometimes many others, sometimes just a few - their number isn't what's important. The point is, like the video title says, that Amazon Just Locked People Out Of Games They Own. And that is unacceptable yet increasingly common.

As we know, this is the "ownership" model that the entirety of the parasite class wants for everything. Pay subscription fees for the "privilege" to access any digital (and increasingly even physical) product, access that can be pulled at any time for any reason. This is why "piracy" isn't just ethically acceptable, it's become ethically obligatory. What I mean to say is that the argument around piracy is always framed as whether it's "wrong" to do it (immoral) or not wrong to do it (neutral). But that's bad framing. The question should be whether it's not wrong (neutral) or whether it is more ethical, literally the more moral thing to do than not because it may be the only way to preserve something once the parasites decide they don't want it on offer anymore.