3 ms·

> Why confuse things? That's...exactly the issue at hand. These companies are not doing much, if anything, to educate their customers on the difference betwee

> Why confuse things? That's...exactly the issue at hand. These companies are not doing much, if anything, to educate their customers on the difference between purchasing a license and purchasing the thing itself. This is, of course, deliberate.

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
The problem here is, that it shouldnt even be labeled as "purchase" (well, "buy" usually), but "rent". Purchasing a licence to rent the content is weasel wording around stuff that is well known and consumers expect it to work in a certain way (eg. buying a dvd or renting a dvd, where in the first case you actually own the dvd, and in the second, you know that they expect you to return it after some time). In every other business, "buy" means "buy", buy a dvd, buy a sandwich, buy a car, buy this, buy that... nowhere else are you expected to return the item (at least not without a refund, eg. in case of a recall).
- freejazz 3y ago
  Weird, never seen this complained of in the context of purchasing a software license, which I assume is something the HN crowd is familiar with. It's not "weasel wording" it's the accurate term. It can also be true that the media companies can make it more clear that what is being purchased is a license which is subject to terms.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I think buying a DvD is the perfect analogue here. You own the shiny disc, you don't own the contents on that disc. We're just taking away the shiny disc in the digital era. It's not a perfect term, but for 99.999% of people, "indefinitely rental for years until the servers die", would associate with "buy".
  - ddj231 3y ago
    But in the dvd case you don’t expect someone to effectively repossess your dvd a couple years down the road without reimbursing you. You don’t own the content but you do own your dvd which allows you to indefinitely watch the content.

3 ms·

> Why confuse things? That's...exactly the issue at hand. These companies are not doing much, if anything, to educate their customers on the difference betwee

by lp0_on_fire 3y ago

ajsnigrutin 3y ago
The problem here is, that it shouldnt even be labeled as "purchase" (well, "buy" usually), but "rent". Purchasing a licence to rent the content is weasel wording around stuff that is well known and consumers expect it to work in a certain way (eg. buying a dvd or renting a dvd, where in the first case you actually own the dvd, and in the second, you know that they expect you to return it after some time). In every other business, "buy" means "buy", buy a dvd, buy a sandwich, buy a car, buy this, buy that... nowhere else are you expected to return the item (at least not without a refund, eg. in case of a recall).
- freejazz 3y ago
  Weird, never seen this complained of in the context of purchasing a software license, which I assume is something the HN crowd is familiar with. It's not "weasel wording" it's the accurate term. It can also be true that the media companies can make it more clear that what is being purchased is a license which is subject to terms.
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  I think buying a DvD is the perfect analogue here. You own the shiny disc, you don't own the contents on that disc. We're just taking away the shiny disc in the digital era. It's not a perfect term, but for 99.999% of people, "indefinitely rental for years until the servers die", would associate with "buy".
  - ddj231 3y ago
    But in the dvd case you don’t expect someone to effectively repossess your dvd a couple years down the road without reimbursing you. You don’t own the content but you do own your dvd which allows you to indefinitely watch the content.