Hacker News Reader

Comment by dc3k | Hacker News Reader

it should not be legal for the product page to say “purchase” or “buy” when in reality you’re only renting it with a to be determined end date

View on HN

So... I used to work in the "digital movie & TV selling" industry. Our product detail pages, like pretty much all our competitors, had language on the call-to-action buttons that said "purchase" (and also, as an alternative, "rent," for 48- or 72-hour viewing).

At one point, about 10 years ago, one of the major Hollywood studios came to us and required us to change that because they believed that exactly this sort of thing would happen and we would all be setting ourselves up for liability because consumers would rightfully assume that that meant they owned the movie "forever."

"Rent for 48h", and... "Rent until we say the time is up"?

and this should include musics and similar in games (excluding stuff like sessional content)

if you sell a game you should have to have bought a license to use the music (and similar) in the game permanently (for given game sold, new sold revision can change what they contain but only if there isn't deceptive advertisement and it's very clearly labeled that it's a different revision/the content changed!).

Single player games putting out "seasonal content" is kind of obnoxious too though so I wouldn't exclude them all. One example is the Moogle Chocobo Carnival and Assassin's Festival in Final Fantasy XV which players had to work very hard to patch back into the game after it was removed. The limited time Stellar Blade Summer Event wasn't nearly as impressive as the carnival, but it was still a black mark on a game that was otherwise refreshingly free from bullshit.

That's a big can of worms, since it applies to approximately 100% of all software. You only ever buy a license that allows you to use software, almost never actually buy software.

I'm quite alright with that can of worms being opened for software. Enthused, even.

I'm reasonably certain when I ordered linux CDs in the 90s, no one put a limit on the time frame I could be using them

And if that one-time purchased software stops working at an arbitrary date, it should be subject to the same rules. Especially online software or software requiring servers to run.

You can still offer limited-time subscriptions, of course, and you can extend the minimum deadline for your server-dependent software to free as often as you want, just make sure people know what the deal is when they buy your software.

DVDs and other media also aren't yours to buy, they're just licenses and a physical container to use that license. You can buy software the same way you can buy a DVD, and you can rent software the same way you can rent a movie on a digital storefront.

Copyright law has been playing semantic games with "buy" and "own" for decades. When I buy(1) something, it's mine, and I can do what I want with it. The person whom I buy it from doesn't have the right to rescind my rights over the thing I bought. When I buy(2) a software license, does the seller have the right to claw back the license? If not, then buy(1) and buy(2) are conceptually identical, and there's no difference between buying a license and buying the (copy of the) software. If yes or unknown, then buying(2) is not buying(1), as it does not grant ownership, but something else; not even over the license.

So what kind of transaction is buying(2) something? What do you get in exchange for money? It's clearly not a good, so is it a service? Is continued permission to use the software a service? Then if that service is interrupted the consumer should be entitled to some kind of reimbursement from the provider, right? Because otherwise the provider has an incentive to stop the service.

Clearly, in Sony's case here it is buy(2), and they've reached into people's accounts and removed content (even using the term "purchased" in the notice email).

This should be criminal. If the sale copy says "buy" "own" "purchase" then they must not be allowed to remove your license to that content by any means.

I'm fine with them removing content from storefronts. I'm even okay with them saying "you're responsible for your downloaded copies, if we decide to discontinue licensing you won't be able to redownload". I'm not fine with them saying "buy" "own" "purchase" and then coming in later "oh we decided to change the licensing situation and so you no longer have access to what you have 'purchased'". That is theft, more than copyright infringement ever could be.

Have there been situations were licenses are mass revoked? That would be quite nasty, I don’t recall any. My licenses to Things, Alfred, Little Snitch, etc. still work to this day. They don’t even bother with upselling.

What's the can of worms? Either actually sell a copy, or if you're merely selling a license then say so explicitly.

Yes, 100%, and that end date should be very clearly listed too.

Oftentimes that end date is not clearly knowable and can't be communicated explicitly, but consumers should still be aware of the fact that their rights are limited. While the Gaben lives valve will store many people's games - when the Gaben dies... well, it's going to suck - but it'll probably take a while to completely suck, we'll probably go through drawn out enshittification first. This outcome seems inevitable[1] but it is likely a fair distance off.

1. Unless you write a damned clear company charter, Gabe, get on that.

Companies selling these titles should know a minimum end date. Even if contracts don't get renewed, it's unlikely they will only have the rights for less than a year.

If that minimum drives customers away, these companies should put more work into ensuring their minimum availability is a good deal.

> Oftentimes that end date is not clearly knowable and can't be communicated explicitly

I am pretty sure that whatever contract streaming platform has with publishers has a some kind of date. It might be unpleasantly short (a year or month) making it look like a bad deal, but that's the point.

In current situation the "unknowable" date might be as short as 1 day. It's up to the good will of streaming service to warn ahead of time. Knowing what you get and the quantity of it is the most basic part of fair deal.

If a streaming service has only negotiated a 1 month license they shouldn't be allowed to re-license the content for longer period. If they want to offer longer deal they need to negotiate better license with publisher or take the risk on themselves by being prepared to give refund in the case of failure to deliver promised service. Telling that they guarantee only single year of service to provide doesn't prevent them from providing it longer.

If a travel agency rents a bus for a day, offering a 1 week trip around Europe would be considered a scam.

If Valve continue to stay privately owned I've some confidence that the status quo will remain, regardless of whether Gaben's around. Enshittification is a feature of publicly traded companies and those owned by private equity.

Yes, it is very comfusing. "Buy" buttons should be replaced by "License" buttons when you are licensing stuff instead of buyimg it. There should be a law for that.

Have you ever bought a ticket to a concert ? what did you actually own ?

I get the feeling, but this whole outrage about what words mean is sterile if you don't actually engage with what is sold here, by who from who, what was the contract, how it was setup and why.

How do you feel about the right holders who also didn't bother providing simple "buy, download and it's forever yours" avenues to get that content ? Or are you just happy being outraged and will go back to your daily life afterwards ? (that's what I'll do, because I was already renting stuff when video tapes were a thing, and I see the current situation as a logical equilibrium, including what happens on the seven seas)

> Have you ever bought a ticket to a concert ? what did you actually own ?

A ticket that would allow you entrance into a particular concert. Is this some sort of rhetorical question? I can't decipher what it's attempting to illustrate.

The original post was about the use of verbs.

> it should not be legal for the product page to say “purchase” or “buy” when [...]

The use of "buy" and "purchase" were never restricted to ownership or unlimited rights, we buy licenses, usage rights, priority tokens, all sorts of lottery tickets and weirder abstractions every day.

GP probably wants digital movies to have a specific purchase model, but the discussion has to be about the model, not the vocabulary. Right now I actually have no idea what they'd be willing to accept as a middle ground to rights management.

I think it's perfectly clear? If you buy a ticket, it's clear you own that ticket. But the usefulness of the ticket is that it can be exchanged for a service (admission to the concert), which is also clear. Nobody would expect the ticket to grant them admission to every future concert by the artist, or at the venue. The date and start/end times are on the ticket you buy, otherwise it would say "lifetime pass" or something.

The same is true with movie downloads, except that Sony very strongly, probably deceptively and maliciously, implies the "lifetime pass" part while they full well know they're only selling you a ticket for access during a limited timeframe.

We wouldn't have this article or discussion if Sony had been truthful and had their store pages not say "purchase movie", but "purchase temporary ticket".

> Have you ever bought a ticket to a concert ?

This comparison makes no sense. When you buy a ticket to a concert you fully expect to be allowed access to said concert. If it gets cancelled because this or that studio owns some random right you fully expect to be refunded.

> I was already renting stuff when video tapes were a thing

Good for you. These guys also propose rental with a rent button, and a purchase button for what you'd expect be purchasing the movie. Do you still not see what the issue is and why the debate on what word means is anything but sterile?

> Or are you just happy being outraged and will go back to your daily life afterwards ?

Wow, this is gratuitous and extremely belittling. I hope you feel good smelling your own farts.

> This comparison makes no sense. When you buy a ticket to a concert you fully expect to be allowed access to said concert. If it gets cancelled because this or that studio owns some random right you fully expect to be refunded.

You're explaining that while the ticket was a purchase, it had specific limitations and the vendor would follow a specific contract, with specific recourse for people in eligible cases.

That's exactly what's happening with Playstation.

Some people might not understand the contract, but we're decades into this now, it's time we're past "the button said 'buy'" discussions.

"Oh but they didn't read the fine prints so that's on them".

What a great argument.

To people, "buy" when in the context of a movie largely means owning the freaking thing.

> we're past "the button said 'buy'" discussions.

That's normalization of deviance. It's fine if you're fine with that scam, don't come onto people who aren't.

Thing is, changing what the button says doesn't change the fine prints nor the central issues.

A ton of stores just moved away from the "buy" language and replaced the buttons with "order", "add to cart", "pay" etc. Stores like Amazon kept the "buy" button while expliciting it's for a license. All the whining on the meaning of buying just went into word tweaking with no further effects.

We need to talk about digital licenses, it's complex and there's no simple answer, but IMHO we first need to get past what the button says.

> You're explaining that while the ticket was a purchase, it had specific limitations and the vendor would follow a specific contract, with specific recourse for people in eligible cases.

You bought a ticket that was advertised as a ticket for a concert and you got that. No one ever claimed or implied you were buying the musicians so they would perform the concert for you whenever you like.

When you 'buy' a movie in the way we are talking about here it is advertised and implied as buying the movie in the sense of owning a copy (or the right to access a copy) of the movie to watch whenever you want forever. What you get is more similar to an unlimited ticket to a cinema that allows you to watch that movie as long as it is shown in the cinema, but the cimema can decide to stop showing the movie any time. Unlike the concert ticket that is purposefully not clearly communicated (and the concert has a fixed service you purchase (one concert) unlike the movie ticket where the service you get is dependent entirely on the goodwill of the cinema)

> it is advertised and implied

I'd argue that it is not, especially regarding advertisement.

It could have been an expectation in the early DVD days, but at the time the Playstation Store started providing movies we were already deep into the digital store area, and we'd already had a bunch of "you own nothing" stories.

To my point the Kotaku title goes "_Reminding Us_ Nothing Digital Is Ever Truly Ours", we've been through this many times now.

Why haven't you given me your soul yet? It was in the fine print you agreed to last week.

People understand the game that’s being played. Folks aren’t going to move past it as you say until there’s reform to ensure it doesn’t happen.

In California it isn't legal

Pretty sure the Terms of Use say just that. They should update the language on the frontend though.

Renting what? The non-exclusive, revocable license? Because that's what purchase or buy means.

No, that’s not what “purchase” or “buy” means.

It literally is.

"Verb

"purchase (third-person singular simple present purchases, present participle purchasing, simple past and past participle purchased)

"To buy, obtain by payment of a price in money or its equivalent."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/purchase

"Verb

"buy (third-person singular simple present buys, present participle buying, simple past bought, past participle bought or (archaic, rare, dialectal) boughten)

"(transitive, ditransitive) To obtain (something) in exchange for money or goods."

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/buy#English

It is. You can either be purchasing a license to a movie, or purchasing the movie itself. You have never been purchasing the movie itself from these services, because you're not entitled to it even after you purchase (i.e. there is DRM, etc. preventing you from ever getting it, you don't get it in any alternative forms, etc). If you want to own something, you buy on iTunes, where they let you download DRM-free copies, to do whatever you want with. But if you buy it on PlayStation, Amazon, etc. you are only getting a revocable license. You are only buying a revocable license. That is what "purchase" or "buy" means, because you're "purchasing" or "buying" the license, not the movie

Citizens don't need a license to read and/or watch stuff in their own private homes, that's a basic right guaranteed by the First Amendment (in the US; similar laws apply in the rest of the civilized world). Whatever you want to claim that people are purchasing it can not be a "viewing license" because that would violate the Constitution.

I never said you need a license to watch something you own. I said when you purchase a license to stream online, you're purchasing the license and not the movie itself. You don't own the movie then, even though you did make a purchase (of the license).

I think we're all agreed on that. What people are upset about is that Sony (and many others) clearly imply in their wording that you're buying a copy when in fact you're buying a streaming license. Same as in the case of Ubisoft's The Crew, which is about people feeling misled about what they were actually purchasing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com