If you don't retain some kind of actual ownership, they will not be allowed to use terms like "buy" or "purchase" on the store page button. I hope there aren't huge holes in this that allow bad actors to get around it, but I certainly loathe the fact that there's no real way to buy a movie or TV show digitally. Not really.

EDIT: On re-reading it, there may be huge holes in it. Like if they just "clearly tell you" how little you're getting when you buy it, they can still say "buy" and "purchase".

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 35 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Much like California's other good-sounding laws, the fine print is what gets you on both ends, both in the law and in the EULA you agree to when signing up that's going to say that all transactions are explicitly a terminable and revocable license.

[–] dual_sport_dork 19 points 2 months ago

A revocable license for a virtual "product" whereupon they absolutely do not give you back your real world dollars if they terminate said license.

There's no power imbalance in this transaction at all, no siree.

Anyway, I'm all for making backups of things. So you de-licensed me. Big whoop. I still have the file and I can still play it, and nobody can physically stop me.

[–] JusticeForPorygon 14 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I suppose that's the difference between laws in the US vs the EU. In the US the wording of the law is everything. If you find some absurd loophole due to weird grammar, good for you. In the EU, at least from an outsiders perspective, the law is enforced as it was intended to be, and if you try to fuck around with wording you get fined.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 2 months ago (1 children)

That's the thing, though, it's not a loophole. It's intentional. It makes a good headline, but it doesn't really do much.

[–] JusticeForPorygon 7 points 2 months ago

That's probably a better way of putting it. "Pretending to help"