California new law forces digital stores to admit you're just licensing content | Hacker News Reader

California new law forces digital stores to admit you're just licensing content

theverge.com

44 pointsextesy11 comments

This changes nothing, other than making companies replace all instances of "buy" with "add to account".

What I'm more interested in are laws against "changing the experience". You force a mandatory update that significantly changes the product in a way that I don't like (removing features or cramming ads into a device I paid for), I should have the option to revert to the original as-bought configuration, or get a complete refund.

Ideally a law stating every version of firmware/software must be freely available, and no mechanism preventing flashing even older firmwares must be present

That doesn't work with keeping the device secure though. Security issues need to be treated as quality problems that are in breach of the original contract until rectified. But then referring to an original firmware won't work. So downgrading the user experience also needs to be treated as breach of contract.

“Renting” the content is a better description. Hopefully one day the pricing reflects that.

Related discussions with more comments:

* Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales (arstechnica.com) 110 comments, Sept 2024 | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665593

* CA law means stores can’t say you’re buying a game when you’re merely licensing it (polygon.com) 122 comments, Sept 2024| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41671838

How about all sales that involved “ownership” be forced to function as actual ownership, retroactively?

Steam was the beginning of the end, it was the early player in normalizing the loss of ownership rights. There's a whole generation that probably isn't even aware that you used to be able to resell your games.

That would never pass a court challenge.

Why? Retroactive changes to tax law have been ruled constitutional. And besides - ownership always had a meaning. Selling things for purchase and then treating it as a limited license is fraud. Even under existing law.

I would rather they require the stores to sell the software not just change the wording for the existing BS.

Changing the wording to “license” just encourages “seasonal” licenses and no single payment option.

The article refers to "physical media" as though that was previously representative of actual ownership. Adobe "sold" versions of its creative suite that are no longer installable even if you have the physical media: Because they "had to shut down the activation servers". This practice should be part of that legislation - retroactively even.

Owners of a digitally disabled version should automatically get access to whatever the current version is. If Adobe isn't okay with that, I'm sure they can find a way to run that obviously heavily burdened server to activate what must be millions of calls. /s

Reply on news.ycombinator.com