Calling people idiots doesn't make you right, and trying to make a different point doesn't show that you understood the original point—quite the opposite.

The point is that if a company can choose not to honor its legal obligation to consumers who have purchased content from them, then there is no reason for consumers to honor their legal obligation to refrain from accessing the same content outside the system the company has provided—or in this case failed to provide.

Moreover, if the legal system of your country doesn't require everyone to uphold their legal obligations, then why should we allow it to hold us to the obligations it has placed on us?

Now you'll probably write a reply that reply that shows no understanding of the difference between ownership and licensing, or between theft and unauthorized access, but you can't say I didn't try.

But if buying isn't owning then... why buy?