It's not. They should be ensuring the service being paid for is available. That's their responsibility.
It's trivial for someone like Netflix to know, and they probably already track it.
It does matter that it's easier. In fact it can be automated. If a user is inactive for 30 days, the subscription could be disabled and automatically reenabled if and when they decide to use it. You wanna argue that would be a lot of work to implement?
And yes, I think this would be reasonable for someone like Netflix, and unreasonable for a paper magazine. What's so hard to understand about that? they're just not comparable.
Because a previous comment said it wouldn't require work. Now you also are saying they'd need to implement it. So we agree it needs work.
> Just admit your argument made no sense
Framing this as "admit" might make it seem like a fait accomplis, but I need a higher bar than that to be persuaded. Biased language only fools very basic readers.
> they're just not comparable.
Why not?
Life is too short to waste energy clinging onto bad arguments simply out of spite or poor self-esteem. Embrace cummingham's law.
Have a good life.
Do people need to have personal responsibility when they operate a business? Why is responsibility any less there?
I think it's irresponsible to exploit other people's mistakes (unless they are a competing business, and not always then either). It happens incidentally sometimes at minimal cost, but at high cost or when it can be avoided, it's the businessperson's responsibility to not do it.
Every one makes mistakes; you too. Forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass ...