4 ms·
There needs to serious discussion about legislating the use of the words "buy" and "purchase" with regard to digital media and anything else where byzantine ter
by lp0_on_fire 5y ago
There needs to serious discussion about legislating the use of the words "buy" and "purchase" with regard to digital media and anything else where byzantine terms of services, 40 pages deep and in fine print explain that you're not really buying the item, you're just buying a license to look at it which can be revoked at any time for whatever reason.
Why do we tolerate this simply because these are digital goods? Hypothetically would we accept Apple pulling this stunt with a macbook, or your ipad? Coming into your house at night and taking it away because their terms of service say they can?
- hellisothers 5y agoIt seems naive to think that clicking “buy” for any digital good which you have to stream from somewhere is akin to owning it. Is the owning platform expected to maintain a server for you to stream the item until you’re dead, until you pass it on to your children? You clearly don’t own it like you own a DVD, it seems like a mismatch of expectations.
- salawat 5y agoNo, if anything is naive, it is being allowed to "Sell" for "Purchase" that arrangement, but divest culpability for breach of contract in legalese. Don't change the way of life represented by the word to make your business model assumptions fit. Thank you very much.
- kcartlidge 5y agoThat is indeed naive thinking (hence personally I buy physical for anything I don't consider disposable). Or rather, it would be naive if they didn't say "Buy" on the button. If they promise an actual sale then, yes, they should be obliged to provide it forever. It's not our problem they promise what they cannot deliver. If they can't/won't then they shouldn't be claiming it is a sale as it's a rental. In other words the issue isn't user naivety it's platform deceit.