5 ms·

Companies should not be able to legally use the words "buy" or "purchase" for anything that can have license or access revoked or does not allow transfer of own

Companies should not be able to legally use the words "buy" or "purchase" for anything that can have license or access revoked or does not allow transfer of ownership.

_nalply 10y ago
Yes! «Rent now!» Sounds a lot catchier...
Mountain-Jack 10y ago
Amen to that. It cannot get more misleading than that. Using the word "buy" instead of "borrow" is done willfully to mislead the consumer as they know that the consumer would otherwise be less likely to enter into the transaction. Buying implies that you have the power of having ownership to a non-exclusive single copy of the work wherein the ownership lies in the ability to command over that ownership (by, for example, giving it to somebody else).
- kybernetyk 10y ago
  You might also argue that people are buying a license and thus "buy" is appropriate.
  - golemotron 10y ago
    If the FDA can police terminology like 'organic' for food, the FTC can step in when companies aren't clear that you are buying a license.
  - moonfern 10y ago
    Maybe inappropriate but I like to know where you bought the "You might also argue" licence of mountain-Jack I couldn't find that on the Amazon store, please help me, that never happened to me, I feel so sad.
  - Drakim 10y ago
    Then it should say "Buy a license now!" rather than "Buy a product now!"
    - mattmaroon 10y ago
      It just says buy now. I've never seen a button that said "buy a product now".
      - wtetzner 10y ago
        But it's always next to a picture or description of the product, not a license. That seems pretty misleading.
        newjersey 10y ago
        I don't like the whole "own it on Blu-ray and DVD" scheme either. I would love to see the end of copyright and just some sort of compensation for releasing unauthorized private data without any significant public utility but I don't know how to define things like public utility.
  - Joeri 10y ago
    Buying a license is pretty bunk though. The common understanding of what purchasing means is incompatible with licenses. This is a long-standing problem of the software industry which has been exported to other domains now that everything is software.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    A better argument is that advertising that a product is available to "buy now", but changing the terms at checkout to "buy a license" is a type of fraud known as "bait and switch". An offer is being made that the seller has no intention of honoring, with a different product (the license) offered as a substitute.
criddell 10y ago
My kids understand what they are buying when they buy digital goods, but my parents don't. The confusion will go away as the population ages. But I wouldn't get too hung up on verbiage. For a while, my jimmies were rustled every time I heard copyright infringement referred to as piracy or theft. In court, get the words right. In regular conversation, all that matters is that people understand what you are saying.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > The confusion will go away as the population ages. Only if we let the erosion of property rights continue. It will be easier to convince people to accept the power grab where (perpetual) copyright protections are extended to protect anything with firmware when they are first conditioned to believe "buying" means "licensing".
  - criddell 10y ago
    The erosion has been slight. When you bought a record 50 years ago, you were still not "buying" the music. The resell right (for example) was tied to the physicality of it. You couldn't repackage the recorded music and sell it.
    - pdkl95 10y ago
      "repackage the recording"? wtf? Nobody said anything about format shifting. The doctrine of First sale says you can always resell your copy, physical or otherwise. 50 years ago your were "buying" a copy when you bought e.g. a vinyl record. (Sometimes people attempt to confuse the situation by conflating the purchase of a copy of a creative work (one instance) with the rights regarding new copies that copyright grants to the creator.) Regardless, I said property rights, not the temporary monopoly granted by copyright. I'm not talking about minor things covered by copyright. John Deere is the current example of eroded property rights, where thy retain de facto ownership through the copyright of the firmware.
sliverstorm 10y ago
You're buying a license, is all. It's plain as day in the corporate world.

Companies should not be able to legally use the words "buy" or "purchase" for anything that can have license or access revoked or does not allow transfer of ownership.

_nalply 10y ago

Yes! «Rent now!» Sounds a lot catchier...

Mountain-Jack 10y ago

Amen to that. It cannot get more misleading than that. Using the word "buy" instead of "borrow" is done willfully to mislead the consumer as they know that the consumer would otherwise be less likely to enter into the transaction. Buying implies that you have the power of having ownership to a non-exclusive single copy of the work wherein the ownership lies in the ability to command over that ownership (by, for example, giving it to somebody else).

kybernetyk 10y ago
You might also argue that people are buying a license and thus "buy" is appropriate.
- golemotron 10y ago
  If the FDA can police terminology like 'organic' for food, the FTC can step in when companies aren't clear that you are buying a license.
- moonfern 10y ago
  Maybe inappropriate but I like to know where you bought the "You might also argue" licence of mountain-Jack I couldn't find that on the Amazon store, please help me, that never happened to me, I feel so sad.
- Drakim 10y ago
  Then it should say "Buy a license now!" rather than "Buy a product now!"
  - mattmaroon 10y ago
    It just says buy now. I've never seen a button that said "buy a product now".
    - wtetzner 10y ago
      But it's always next to a picture or description of the product, not a license. That seems pretty misleading.
      - newjersey 10y ago
        I don't like the whole "own it on Blu-ray and DVD" scheme either. I would love to see the end of copyright and just some sort of compensation for releasing unauthorized private data without any significant public utility but I don't know how to define things like public utility.
- Joeri 10y ago
  Buying a license is pretty bunk though. The common understanding of what purchasing means is incompatible with licenses. This is a long-standing problem of the software industry which has been exported to other domains now that everything is software.
- pdkl95 10y ago
  A better argument is that advertising that a product is available to "buy now", but changing the terms at checkout to "buy a license" is a type of fraud known as "bait and switch". An offer is being made that the seller has no intention of honoring, with a different product (the license) offered as a substitute.

criddell 10y ago

My kids understand what they are buying when they buy digital goods, but my parents don't. The confusion will go away as the population ages. But I wouldn't get too hung up on verbiage. For a while, my jimmies were rustled every time I heard copyright infringement referred to as piracy or theft. In court, get the words right. In regular conversation, all that matters is that people understand what you are saying.

pdkl95 10y ago
> The confusion will go away as the population ages. Only if we let the erosion of property rights continue. It will be easier to convince people to accept the power grab where (perpetual) copyright protections are extended to protect anything with firmware when they are first conditioned to believe "buying" means "licensing".
- criddell 10y ago
  The erosion has been slight. When you bought a record 50 years ago, you were still not "buying" the music. The resell right (for example) was tied to the physicality of it. You couldn't repackage the recorded music and sell it.
  - pdkl95 10y ago
    "repackage the recording"? wtf? Nobody said anything about format shifting. The doctrine of First sale says you can always resell your copy, physical or otherwise. 50 years ago your were "buying" a copy when you bought e.g. a vinyl record. (Sometimes people attempt to confuse the situation by conflating the purchase of a copy of a creative work (one instance) with the rights regarding new copies that copyright grants to the creator.) Regardless, I said property rights, not the temporary monopoly granted by copyright. I'm not talking about minor things covered by copyright. John Deere is the current example of eroded property rights, where thy retain de facto ownership through the copyright of the firmware.

sliverstorm 10y ago

You're buying a license, is all. It's plain as day in the corporate world.