If you don’t retain some kind of actual ownership, they will not be allowed to use terms like “buy” or “purchase” on the store page button. I hope there aren’t huge holes in this that allow bad actors to get around it, but I certainly loathe the fact that there’s no real way to buy a movie or TV show digitally. Not really.
EDIT: On re-reading it, there may be huge holes in it. Like if they just “clearly tell you” how little you’re getting when you buy it, they can still say “buy” and “purchase”.
The power to destroy a thing is the absolute control over it
DRM violates this principle. Atreides forever
How do you figure? If the DRM depends on them, doesn’t that give them the power to destroy it?
They will get around it. Instead I suggest that buy buttons should say what you’re buying.
For example: Just “buy” should not be allowed.
“Buy License” or “Rent Game” for games with DRM. “Buy game” where you own your digital copy and can do whatever you want with it.
“Buy game” where you own your digital copy and can do whatever you want with it.
We ain’t ever seein’ that one.
Is still only licensing you the game regardless of whether or not you can download it and play it offline without a problem.
Much like California’s other good-sounding laws, the fine print is what gets you on both ends, both in the law and in the EULA you agree to when signing up that’s going to say that all transactions are explicitly a terminable and revocable license.
A revocable license for a virtual “product” whereupon they absolutely do not give you back your real world dollars if they terminate said license.
There’s no power imbalance in this transaction at all, no siree.
Anyway, I’m all for making backups of things. So you de-licensed me. Big whoop. I still have the file and I can still play it, and nobody can physically stop me.
I suppose that’s the difference between laws in the US vs the EU. In the US the wording of the law is everything. If you find some absurd loophole due to weird grammar, good for you. In the EU, at least from an outsiders perspective, the law is enforced as it was intended to be, and if you try to fuck around with wording you get fined.
That’s the thing, though, it’s not a loophole. It’s intentional. It makes a good headline, but it doesn’t really do much.
Next: make it so games can’t suddenly lose their music license. This is so incredible annoying. I know it’s depending on what the publishers negotiated, but it shouldn’t be possible to suddenly patch out soundtracks because of a license expire.
Other way around. Require sales of licenses to games to be perpetual. The way you phrased it means that the license holders can charge way more.
If you’re not receiving physical media, and you’re not saving a copy to local storage, then you’re not buying anything. You’re renting it.
You can buy a perpetual license and then you own it (the license) regardless of storage or possession.
That’s great until they decide to stop providing whatever content you licensed.
Just because you bought something and never picked it up it isn’t the stores fault. If you buy a perpetual license to digital code then never download it then cry when the store stops providing the source or updating it sounds like a you problem. Now a SaaS thing is weird. Like what do i do when I own a license for Helldivers 2 and the service turns off. That is like paying a person a lump sum for a service like trash but it is one person and you expect it to last at least 50 years since that person is young and they die next week. Now you are out the money and the service expecting the service would never end
