4 ms·

They need to stop calling them purchases. You don't own anything after digital transactions on most platforms, you just have a really limited license; but the l

They need to stop calling them purchases. You don't own anything after digital transactions on most platforms, you just have a really limited license; but the language these services use implies that you are 'buying' something. If you buy a chocolate bar, and the person who 'sold' it goes into your house at night and takes it back, we know something fishy is going on. Right? We all know what 'buy' means. These services need to use a different term for these transactions!

hammyhavoc 4y ago
What about a bus pass? What about a movie ticket? These are things that inevitably expire and are only good for a set period of time. Users have purchased a license. Were they able to access the product they were granted a license for? Yes. "Purchase" is fine.
- m-p-3 4y ago
  Then it's not something you buy or purchase, it's something you rent or subscribe to.
  - hammyhavoc 4y ago
    No, it's a license that's been purchased. Read some EULA.
    - m-p-3 4y ago
      If the license can be revoked for any reason, then it's not a purchase, it's a rental with an undetermined end date.
      - hammyhavoc 4y ago
        These scenarios are commonly mentioned in various EULA. This is as silly an argument as complaining you can't sample a CD to use in a new song because you "purchased" the song.
        m-p-3 4y ago
        But nobody will come into your home and take back the CD because of an expired distribution agreement.
        hammyhavoc 4y ago
        If you buy a game or piece of software which has a license that needs activating online, but their servers are no longer available, it leaves you in a similar situation. I agree that it sucks though, but I find the terminology to be least problematic aspect of it all. More works needs to be done in regards to cultural preservation.
- hansvm 4y ago
  Both of those examples are short-lived. Nobody would be _confused_ by somebody saying that you can pay them for an "event" like riding on a bus or watching a movie, and nobody should be confused that a year down the line that event is no longer available. There's a qualitative difference between that and platforms saying that you've purchased something, letting you use it for enough years that it seems to be yours (like nearly everything else in your life you've "purchased") and then having that item taken away. Are you really arguing that the average person would believe that the library items they purchased could be taken away? If so, I'm clearly missing something, why? If not, that's the whole point -- we shouldn't use terms that actively mislead people into paying more money for fewer benefits.

hammyhavoc 4y ago

What about a bus pass? What about a movie ticket? These are things that inevitably expire and are only good for a set period of time. Users have purchased a license. Were they able to access the product they were granted a license for? Yes. "Purchase" is fine.

m-p-3 4y ago
Then it's not something you buy or purchase, it's something you rent or subscribe to.
- hammyhavoc 4y ago
  No, it's a license that's been purchased. Read some EULA.
  - m-p-3 4y ago
    If the license can be revoked for any reason, then it's not a purchase, it's a rental with an undetermined end date.
    - hammyhavoc 4y ago
      These scenarios are commonly mentioned in various EULA. This is as silly an argument as complaining you can't sample a CD to use in a new song because you "purchased" the song.
      - m-p-3 4y ago
        But nobody will come into your home and take back the CD because of an expired distribution agreement.
        hammyhavoc 4y ago
        If you buy a game or piece of software which has a license that needs activating online, but their servers are no longer available, it leaves you in a similar situation. I agree that it sucks though, but I find the terminology to be least problematic aspect of it all. More works needs to be done in regards to cultural preservation.
hansvm 4y ago
Both of those examples are short-lived. Nobody would be _confused_ by somebody saying that you can pay them for an "event" like riding on a bus or watching a movie, and nobody should be confused that a year down the line that event is no longer available. There's a qualitative difference between that and platforms saying that you've purchased something, letting you use it for enough years that it seems to be yours (like nearly everything else in your life you've "purchased") and then having that item taken away. Are you really arguing that the average person would believe that the library items they purchased could be taken away? If so, I'm clearly missing something, why? If not, that's the whole point -- we shouldn't use terms that actively mislead people into paying more money for fewer benefits.