I think they meant basic concept of keeping the things you paid for, such as software, ebooks, musics, et.. Not actual housing market.

I didn't mention the housing market? I was talking about anyone who produces goods (digital or physical).

There's not an inherent privilege of purchasing over renting in property rights. In either case you're paying for something, it's just a different slice of that something. They're different transactions that can benefit the different parties different ways in different situations. But if technological development lets the owner get the financial rewards of selling through "licensing" that's hardly a reduction in the owner's rights - and it's hard to make a "pro-strong-property-rights" argument that's based in "people should be forced to sell on the buyer's terms, not their own."

> There's not an inherent privilege of purchasing over renting in property rights. In either case you're paying for something, it's just a different slice of that something

I don't think there's anything inherently right about renting or owning.

Rather, it's one of the things we need to learn about and decide which is better for our societies.

Right now, we are far into testing the "renting" side, especially when it comes to housing and software, and it's very clear that, at least as currently implemented, this is creating an unhealthy society with massive wealth inequality.

I don't have an answer to this, but the only people I see arguing for the status quo are the very few who have benefited from it - landlords, politicians, company execs etc. Or at least people who aspire to join those classes.

If you do find yourself arguing for it, please ask yourself whether you're doing it for selfish reasons rather than looking beyond yourself.

I think the problem is not with renting but with letting owners hoard property (real estate or other) to profit from renting them out en masse, depriving others from ownership options. Also owners considering their property as something to do with as they want (exploit) rather than a duty of care. Best of both worlds for them: e.g. charge each month for software to pay for "ongoing development" and spend it on shareholders and/or features for growth but cut costs on support and maintenance... Or you know, rent out a moldy, drafty studio to a desperate intern who must move to Paris to work and doesn't have rich parents.

Maybe it proves your point that I'm technically a landlord now, but only to help out a neighbour so they could stay in the area for cheap, because they needed to downsize, approached me and we agreed on a very low price. I wasn't initially planning on renting it out because it needed some upfront work to be liveable, which might be even more selfish considering the housing shortage where i live...

>from the point of view of the producers of those things.

Fundamentally that's the question. Do we want a society from the perspective of "the producers" or the greater population?

Not trying to put words in OP's mouth, but I think the general idea is that software has allowed "the producers" to shrink in number and grow in power, turning independent farmers into serfs if you will. Should that cause us to reevaluate the previous question?

> Do we want a society from the perspective of "the producers" or the greater population?

Look at what the right wing US party always runs on - cutting taxes for "job creators", "running the government like a business", and bail outs for Wall Street.

At least half of this country fantasies about being at the beck and call of "the producers" of things. Fanboys of Elon Musk squeal if he interacts with them on Twitter.