Basically you just dismissed the validity of enforceable contracts, which is one of the supporting pillars of western capitalism.
Really? You're going to blow what I contributed that much out of proportion? For what exactly?
The intended message was a good poke at renting vs. owning and at "trusting strangers" as data caretakers "in the cloud" over having your files & data on a local drive and being your own caretaker. I was not trying to bring down western capitalism nor even damage a pillar.
This whole thread is mostly about the consequences of someone opting to trust third parties- Apple & Studios- to deliver ownership-like benefits in a rental-like arrangement that breaks with tradition and allows those third parties to position themselves in between that someone and some media. It's trusting for-profit corporations to be caretaker of media instead of just buying that media and being our own caretakers (as it has long been with this particular kind of product). It's allowing what amounts to strangers to squeeze themselves in between owners & property in such a way that the owner can potentially lose control of that property... at either stranger's whim... at any point in time.
If your effort to twist or blow something that far out of proportion is because you are leaping to Apple's defense, you are mistaken in believing I was attacking Apple. Instead, I was questioning the logic of renting vs. owning where the economic benefit is relatively slight... AND questioning the logic of trusting third-party data caretakers when probably just about anyone can store all of the media they've accumulated in their entire life on a dirt cheap hard drive (or two) they completely control so that this kind of thing could not happen.