4 ms·

Nah. License is just a weasel word here. Save that for the lawyers. Consumers can buy or rent. There's no in between.

alistairSH 3y ago
That's probably preferable, but would increase the cost to the consumer, as Sony (or whoever) would need to negotiate permanent deals with Disney (or whoever) instead of the current system. I'm sort of mostly ok with paying $15 for a semi-permanent license to a movie. I'm not ok with paying $40 for a true permanent purchase. Big guess on those prices, as I mostly just stream whatever is available today, so I'm not the target audience either way, I suppose.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > I'm sort of mostly ok with paying $15 for a semi-permanent license to a movie. Everyone is until the content goes away.
- globular-toast 3y ago
  Increase cost compared to what? You can't compare it to current rental systems, you have to compare it to Blu-ray etc. If the cost of buying a digital copy is significantly higher than Blu-ray then people will just stick with Blu-ray. If they don't want to issue such deals at all then that's fine too, but they just can't use the words "buy" or "purchase" at all and can only say "rent".
scottyah 3y ago
Makes sense for objects, but I think they're classifying these goods as services. Would you call it "renting" a massage, because if something happens and they have to stop part-way though you don't get the full massage as expected? Perhaps the "buy" option should have an implied lifetime of ownership, and anything less they have to pay you back (keeping all those sales $ in escrow would sure be a pain)
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  A massage is a nonsensical comparison, since it cannot be used more than once. Anything other than rent is an unnecessary complication.
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  I'm pretty sure if I pay for a massage and it has to be interrupted early for reasons that aren't my fault, I can reasonably expect to get a refund or replacement.

That's probably preferable, but would increase the cost to the consumer, as Sony (or whoever) would need to negotiate permanent deals with Disney (or whoever) instead of the current system. I'm sort of mostly ok with paying $15 for a semi-permanent license to a movie. I'm not ok with paying $40 for a true permanent purchase. Big guess on those prices, as I mostly just stream whatever is available today, so I'm not the target audience either way, I suppose.

lotsofpulp 3y ago
> I'm sort of mostly ok with paying $15 for a semi-permanent license to a movie. Everyone is until the content goes away.
globular-toast 3y ago
Increase cost compared to what? You can't compare it to current rental systems, you have to compare it to Blu-ray etc. If the cost of buying a digital copy is significantly higher than Blu-ray then people will just stick with Blu-ray. If they don't want to issue such deals at all then that's fine too, but they just can't use the words "buy" or "purchase" at all and can only say "rent".

scottyah 3y ago

Makes sense for objects, but I think they're classifying these goods as services. Would you call it "renting" a massage, because if something happens and they have to stop part-way though you don't get the full massage as expected? Perhaps the "buy" option should have an implied lifetime of ownership, and anything less they have to pay you back (keeping all those sales $ in escrow would sure be a pain)

lotsofpulp 3y ago
A massage is a nonsensical comparison, since it cannot be used more than once. Anything other than rent is an unnecessary complication.
BobaFloutist 3y ago
I'm pretty sure if I pay for a massage and it has to be interrupted early for reasons that aren't my fault, I can reasonably expect to get a refund or replacement.