CA law means stores can't say you're buying a game if you're merely licensing it

dmoy

I like the idea of reclaiming the word "buy" to only be the traditional type of ownership transfer (first sale doctrine or whatever if it's a copyrighted thing). Mandate the use of the word "license" or "rent" if it's something else

Sniffnoy

Feel like it's worth linking to the Stop Killing Games campaign (https://www.stopkillinggames.com/) here! See also other recent thread on this story (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665593) where one of the organizers commented on the relevance (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41666381). :)

smeej

It makes me wonder about the meta question about how to stop whatever the next iteration of this will be.

Like, if we look back at this, surely there were people saying, "Hey, things have changed. You don't actually 'own' the thing you think you're buying anymore. This could come back to bite you," but on the whole, not nearly enough people cared for it to shape the market.

There is sure to be another thing like this, some other movement where yet another owner of something finds a way to sell you access to it in a way that makes you think it's "yours," but actually all you have is permission to use it as long as they remain happy with you and happy to continue allowing you access. How do we make sure people know and care next time?

And what about the fact that, on the whole, most people are apparently fine with having access to things rather than ownership of them? How do you make the distinction when it matters, but allow both types of transactions? (For example, I'm glad I don't have to buy, and then sell, even a single room in a house to stay in when I'm traveling; paying to use it for a limited period is preferable to me in that situation.)

We know putting the information in the terms of use won't help, but what would?

WCSTombs

This is the bill itself, which is pretty short and understandable: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

I think it's pretty sensible. For any digital good (including books and movies etc., not just games), if you're supposedly buying the thing, it can't be given to you in a form in which your ownership can be unilaterally revoked later.

nioj

Related discussion from two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41663432

tantalor

Are they going to require refunds when the license is revoked?

stewx

Willing to bet that the retailers will opt to change the button label rather than change business practices.

dang

Recent and related:

Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665593 - Sept 2024 (100 comments)

teeray

I have faith that the marketing department can spin this. "Why just BUY a game when you can get A LICENSE TO GAME. Show you friends how much of a badass you are with ALL YOUR GAME LICENSES"

NewJazz

Not just games. The law applies to any copyrightable work, afaict.

hedora

I wish they’d take the next obvious step, and say that if you get a license that lasts for more than N months without recurring payments, then the license is actually a sale.

jbpnoy6fifty

I wonder if this trend will expand to other goods, like when you "purchase" a car.

You might be licensed to operate the vehicle but restricted in specific interactions with it.

It seems the industry is moving in this direction, which is concerning due to the cost structure. It shifts control away from consumers and toward the IP owners of these products.

Tesla may be a notable example, where you're unable to make modifications or repairs to the car without a proper license.

ChrisArchitect

[dupe] More discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41665593

Manchit

In this case, licensing should be more affordable than the physical sale given its ownership cannot be transferred.

copperx

I love the idea of reclaiming the meaning of "buy." However, after 70+ years of music recordings being "sold," we're all used to the concept of buying = licencing.

Ferret7446

Well, that's troublesome. Because you can't buy a game or any other digital good, due to copyright law. The concept does not exist.

I mean, I guess you could theoretically buy a physical medium that contains the data for a game, explicitly without a license to use the data in any way. But at the end of the day, you will always be licensing it, until the government abolishes the artificial enforced monopoly called copyright.

octacat

"Pay for a temporary access" instead of "buy". For people who do not like "rent".

bena

I don't think people really want "buy" either. Not deep down.

For instance, I bought Super Mario World for the Super Nintendo Entertainment System. That game is locked in. No fixes, no additions, no nothing. What is on the cart is what you get. Nintendo has no more obligation to me and I have no more obligation to them.

But people expect updates and changes. Let's not talk about "incomplete games being finished through updates", games get updated all the time now. Even for physical copies. Games now often install on the hardware and check for updates on first run.

So if we go to "buy", if you get a broken game, that's on you. Don't buy from them anymore. You don't get to hound the developers to "fix" the game. You paid for the thing, they gave you the thing. If you want a refund, return the thing.

I think we still haven't quite figured out how to work with ephemeral goods like software. It's kind of like a performance, kind of like a physical item, etc. It requires far more effort to generate than it does to copy. And buyers want to buy on the value of the copying, but sellers want to sell on the value of generation.