I don't know about the other one, but in the Steam store I see "Buy" buttons, not "Rent". "Buy <game name>" in the store page, then when you go a "Shopping Cart", where you can "Purchase" the game.
To me (and to the average people, I guess) it doesn't sound as a rental service at all.
I'm sure that their ToS says otherwise, but I wonder how it would fare in a court case...
You instead need a judge or jury or law that says: "No, fuck you, this is confusing and we don't care what's in your ToS, you will treat this as a product which has had its ownership changed in return for money".
Common usage of the word 'buy' also applies here - the term 'rent' would be confusing to a customer and would usually imply it being time-limited (often days).
And you do have ownership of the licence.
Also is GameStop allowed to use the term 'buy' in their shops? Because they are often selling a licence too, it's just in a box.
Under your definition you can't buy a ticket to a concert, or buy pharmacuticals if a doctor gives you a perscription, but most people would say that you could buy those things.
See pharmaceuticals as an obvious/trivial example - you can own prescription drugs without being able to sell/dispense them.
Of course you can own things that you can't sell anyway, you can own an extended warranty on your flatscreen television, or own non-transferrable bonds in a company.
Most things you own you can sell, but it's a mistake to think that ability to sell is a prereqesite to ownership, and a non-transferable licence is one of those things on the list of 'things you can own but cannot sell'.
And on the 'buy' point - Do you think you can buy a haircut, or buy a pedicure?
> And on the 'buy' point - Do you think you can buy a haircut, or buy a pedicure?
Those are services, not products.
If we are happy that you can buy services, I assume we are happy with Steam using “buy” to represent the purchase of the service and licensing offering they have?
Now, with software this is usually not a big issue because the mismatch is not huge. When you buy a retail software, you got not the same but at least similar rights that you get when you buy a physical book: you can use it, you can lend it, you can sell it, you cannot make copies. So, when you say "I bought a game", everybody understand what it means, even those that disagree with the term.
Now in case of something like Steam, not only you get a license, but you cannot lend it, you cannot sell it, one day you may not be able to use it anymore because the DRM servers are taken offline (not Steam's fault this), or Steam may decide that you are a "bad guy" and remove access to your whole library.
At this point, the difference between "buying something" and "buying a license to something" becomes more marked, and in my opinion should warrant a different term on the store.
Probably a bad example - lots of property deals are structured as purchasing the 'leasehold' where you only get the right to live in it and do not own the physical property/land.
Most times when people buy an apartment/flat for example, you aren't actually buying an apartment, you are buying a right to rent an apartment.
This is very common in the UK, and does happen in the USA too (e.g. in New York).
This is distinct from buying a freehold property where you are buying the land and structure, rather than just buying a right to rent for a particular term.
To my layman's ear the two terms sound almost contradictory.
> An “irrevocable” license, on the other hand, cannot be terminated, although there is some divergence in authority regarding whether this means that the license cannot be terminated for any reason or only that the license cannot be terminated for convenience, but still may be terminated for breach.
https://casetext.com/analysis/the-terms-revocable-and-irrevo...
When it comes to software, that's only possible to do with open source. With closed source you're only ever buying a perpetual usage license. (Unless you are a company buying out another company or it's assets, that is).
It's complicated, because software and digital data is inherently different from physical goods - and all those concepts of "selling" a "copy" are just rather ramshackle attempts at making digital goods compatible with laws designed for physical goods.
You can sell your iphone without any issue, there are plenty of stores around me offering to buy used models to resell. I'm actually contemplating buying a used model. Can't do that with steam games.
I'm also pretty confident that if apple and their services disappeared tomorrow, my iphone would keep on working just like it does today. Sure, no more updates, no more new apps, it would be frozen in the state it's in.
Therefore, I think the question is whether an iphone is a "general computing device", or "an appliance". I can see the arguments for both, even though I tend to treat mine as the latter.
You can hardly call that "working like it does today". It doesn't. When features on it inevitably cease to work or be interoperable, you're screwed. And every day, you're probably more vulnerable to crime.
If I buy a house, I can learn to maintain it and keep it secured. I can't do that with my iPhone.
For the argument's sake, your ability to do things to your own house is restricted by zoning, by HOA and god forbid you from buying something of historical significance in Europe -- then you can't change anything inside or outside and you are responsible for it.
For pretty much every thing there are restrictions on what you can do with it - if I buy a phone, I'm prohibited from smashing it into my neighbour's face, and grinding it up and baking into the cookies I sell would be a violation of health&safety rules, but that's still full ownership.
Now, if the seller wants to impose extra restrictions above and beyond what the general society does, that's a different issue.
What an exaggeration. Do you think such hyperbole strengthens your point? At best it makes you sound ignorant.
This is a red herring. What matters is your freedom to use, repair, modify, resell, loan etc the hardware you bought and own.
I think you're underestimating how much of the iPhone's functionality depends on Apple's servers being available beyond just installing & updating apps: Think push notifications, backups, iCloud, iMessage, no more Safari updates (shiver), …
How do I add my own apps to my iPhone, permanently?
Otherwise, stealing would be very easy - just connect to wifi without access to apple servers and voila: phone is yours.
The fact that you can't even imagine how that might work points to the real problem.
How would I know if I own a device or not?
If you buy an iPhone, but don't think you own it. Why don't you think you own it? If your response is "because I can't run the software I want to on it," is that a problem with the perception of what you bought or is that a violation of the idea of ownership? If that's a violation of the idea of ownership, why?
One test for "full ownership" is the contractual restrictions that come attached; i.e. whether the law is the only thing that limits what you can do with the thing, or whether there are some extra conditions (which are not that rare in e.g. real estate deals for as long as we have recorded history); that's generally considered ownership but a restricted one. On the other hand, if you aren't prohibited to do that thing but simply aren't capable of doing it, that would still be considered unrestricted ownership.
But something that is a key part of ownership - especially with respect to various "buying" of e.g. games - is the ability to transfer it to others. If you can't give or sell the thing you've purchased to someone else, that clearly indicates that you don't own it.
Here's the concept of ownership for private property in German Law. It's broadly defined as 1) Exclusive Rights, 2) Transferability, 3) Protection against Unlawful Interference, 4) Compensation for Expropriation and 5) Inheritance and Succession.
Now, some, or even many, new games may refuse if they are somehow extremely dependent on the service. The ones that I have tried run fine. Most old stuff, though.
The vast supermajority of games on steam require steam itself to be operable in order to even run. Valve absolutely can break or turn off steam and (legally!) revoke access to most games on most steam user PCs that way.
What do you mean by that? The steam ToS (which are enforceable by law) make pretty clear that Valve can revoke your access to any game at any time. Further, your access is dependent on Valve's continued existence. The argument that you are "buying a license" is like saying you "buy a rental contract" at a car rental place. The contract you have with Valve to play the game allows you to play the game for an indefinite period of time, but crucially only while Valve is still in business and while they let you play the game. This is in the ToS and in the USA there is no reason (IANAL) that I see to think the courts won't enforce this contract.
> If things are different in your jurisdiction, please do share how and why
Which law in your jurisdiction makes the Valve ToS feel more like a purchase and less like a rental?
Rental contracts have defined time periods. Perpetual licenses don't. That's a massive difference.
Since you're not a lawyer (your words) and seem to care about US laws (I don't), I am not sure what's the point of this response to a topic about digital purchases in the EU.
In the US it is legal to have a "buy" button that actually purchases a longterm revocable license. I don't like it, but thats how it works on this side of the pond.