Comment by reichstein | Hacker News Reader

Comment by reichstein | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

It's not that I don't agree, but lawyers will then ask you to define "buy" in such a way that it is distinguishable from a perpetual lease with a cancellation clause _to buyers_, without also disallowing a lot of actually useful leasing agreements.

The thing is, you never did _buy_ that Steam game. And you never bought the software on the TV, which you did buy the hardware of, you bought a software lease along with the hardware.

The latter case I can see something to do about - define the software and its functionality as an "essential component" of the hardware, and require companies to not break essential components of hardware they sell. They can stop offering online services, but the rest of the device should keep working.

For pure software leases, I don't see a good way to not have them be whatever the contract say they are, not without reclassifying them as something else than a copyrighted work. (But then "sellers" should be very clear what you're "buying".)

A lease should have a clear timetable. How long am I leasing this thing for? 1 year? 3 years?

I'm fine with companies leasing software. I don't like it, and I much prefer buying, but that's fine. That is what software subscriptions are, the terms and conditions are clear.

"Buying" something where access can be revoked at any time, for any reason, needs to become illegal.

> It's not that I don't agree, but lawyers will then ask you to define "buy" in such a way that

One fundamental thing would be to make it illegal to lawyer redefinitions of common words. If the sales of a game uses the word "buy" it should not be legal to redefine "buy" in that context to actually mean lump-sum lease or something.

I'm pretty sure the game studios wouldn't like me to buy their games if I were to amend the terms of sale with a clause in fine print that the term "pay" means "setting up a temporary IOU for which I reserve the right to have it resolved into nothing at my discretion". So, I'll pay later if I decide pay, maybe never. That's effectively what their "buy" means.

> it should not be legal to redefine "buy"

Your post made me go on a thought exercise: imagine a world where you could either own or lease software products. Game developers could decide whether their customers can actually buy the product (which involves ownership) or just the traditional licensing/leasing, which is the prevailing model today.

How would ownership actually work? What does ownership of digital goods mean? Can they even be owned? You get 1 copy of the bytes? How is this enforced? What's to stop you from just selling it multiple times?

If you can't resell it, then what do you actually own? The right to use the product in perpetuity? But that's just another form of lease, no?

Am I getting bogged down in semantics?

Just get the crypto bros involved. Track the license using blockchain. Should allow transferal of the license without allowing endless duplication.

“distinguishable from a perpetual lease with a cancellation clause”

Perpetual lease is not a valid concept. I mean it is, just like perpetual employment is - we call it serfdom or slavery.

Iy serves no legitimate purpose. It’s just a workaround.

If you cannot define meaning of “Buy” then you cannot govern at all.

You never bought the movie on a DVD either or the text in a book. Yet everyone understands what is meant. This isn't really something that needs complex legislation.

>but lawyers will then ask you to define "buy"

Why would they ask me? I'm a nobody.

Now, I'm sure some disciplined software lobbyist have spent a very long time and can answer such questions in legslese that protects the customers. Let's find them.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com