4 ms·
> class-action lawsuits over the meaning of the words “rent” and “buy.” Ohhhhh this is great news! This has been a personal soap box of mine for years and year
by black_puppydog 6y ago
> class-action lawsuits over the meaning of the words “rent” and “buy.”
Ohhhhh this is great news! This has been a personal soap box of mine for years and years.
I really hope that the outcome will be that going forward at least, these words won't be used lightly anymore for risk of false advertising lawsuits. That should take care of a bunch of the "just rent it" business models that on second thought aren't really what the customer wanted at all. Well, I may be wrong about it. Maybe the world really doesn't care. In which case, at least language will be re-joined with reality in this case.
Edit: and at the risk of starting a fire here, this might also call into question some practices by the likes of Tesla and John Deere
- 0_gravitas 6y agothis is also something that im sure many friends of mine are tired of me talking about. "buy/purchase it now!" buttons are far more effective marketing-wise than "license it now!", which is one of the reasons why these companies are going to hang on with all the claws they've got.
- dane-pgp 6y agoCouldn't companies just put "Licence to watch..." in small print above the name of the movie/item and then still say "Buy now!" on the button, because you are buying the licence?
- sellyme 6y agoIn some countries, absolutely. In countries with consumer law, no. For example, where I live (Australia), it's absolutely unambiguously illegal to mislead the consumer. It's pretty obvious to everyone that putting "BUY!" in 72pt font and then a tiny "...a limited-time license" somewhere else on the page is misleading, as the word humans use for that is "rent", and therefore it would be false advertising.