Hacker News Reader

Comment by robonerd | Hacker News Reader

It's as old as law itself, isn't it? From the Code of Hammurabi (translation from wikipedia):

> If a merchant should give silver to a trading agent for an investment venture, and he [the trading agent] incurs a loss on his journeys, he shall return silver to the merchant in the amount of the capital sum.

Not quite applicable, but kind of? If I give silver to Sony for a movie and Sony loses the rights to that movie, I want my damn silver back.

View on HN

You are powerless to accomplish anything in an adverserial situation unless you can mobilize men with weapons to do your bidding. These days it is the court systems that authorize and compel the restoration of your property with the threat of depravation of liberty or purchasing power of the defendant.

This can be summarized as appealing to a higher power — your example is the courts, an alternative is the public reputation / free market. Without a 3rd party institution to appeal to, the parties must reconcile between themselves in a conflict e.g. violence. Same principle applies often in macro/micro contexts.

Even the public reputation and free market system reduces ultimately to threat of violence, due to the fact that bank balances are maintained by state-licensed entities. It's just one more level of abstraction from state violence, but it is still always there.

Whether it’s bank balances or pitchforks, the result is a conflict. Whether both parties are able to delegate judgement to a higher power determines the type of resolution. In the case where parties recognize a higher power it can be resolved without true violence (bloodshed)

Digital sales are license agreements not transfers of ownership

There's no technical or legal reason that the word "purchase" doesn't imply an irrevocable, transferable license (for one person at a time), as well as the requirement that the "seller" makes the licensed good indefinitely available to license holders (for a fee appropriate to cost of doing so).

If they don't like that, don't call it a purchase. Anything less is just eroding the meaning of the word.

I agree. I’m just telling you what the terms of service say.

In such case calling them purchase should be illegal or result in mandatory refund.

Maybe refund should be indexed by inflation.

Then remove the "buy" button and replace it with "lease for some time, until we decide otherwise"

You are being downvoted because your sentence is self-contradictory.

One does not “sell” a license agreement, one “enters into it with a third party”. Wether it is digital or not.

> One does not “sell” a license agreement

Factually, yes, one does sell licenses.

> one “enters into it with a third party”.

One also does that. When one offers to do so, in exchange for money, it is also selling the license. You are simply setting up a false dichotomy.

I suppose I could have put ‘sales’ in quotes. And it’s not how I think things should be. It’s how they are. Read the terms next time you ‘buy’ a digital product.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com