Quote:
Originally Posted by GeoffR
Then under consumer law the seller has an obligation to make that clear in their main message, not just include it in the terms and conditions.
Edit: What it all comes down to is that the terms and conditions are not allowed to contradict the main message. The main message is clearly about buying, with a big fat BUY button. But the terms and consitions contradict that when they say they are not actually selling, just licensing.
|
You are *buying*...
...a license.
That's why it's not renting: renting involves temporary ownership and (usually) recurring payments. Not a one time payment for an "eternal" ownership.
When you buy disk-based content (games, movie, applications) you make a one time payment to buy a license to use that product indefinitely. No limits on its use other than the terms and conditions specified in the transaction. This practice has been going on for forty years. It is understood by consumers the world over...
...except, apparently in publishing...
It's really simple: when you buy a disk-based copy of FALLOUT 4 you get a license to play the game that is tied to the physical disk. When you buy a digital download version you get a license to play the game that is tied to the user account and playable wherever the account is valid. In both cases you are buying a license that comes with a set of conditions. The first is transferable but if the disk is damaged the license becomes inaccessible whereas the second is non-transferable but can be redownloaded as many times as necessary. It is a trade-off.
The exact same situation plays out in books: if you buy a dead tree edition you get a license to read that is tied to the rotting tree pulp. It is transferable but if you lose the codex or it is damaged you do not get a replacement. If you buy the digital edition you get a license to read tied to the user account and readable wherever the account is valid. It isn't transferable but can be redownloaded as many times as necessary. It is a trade-off.
The practice is decades old.
The trade-off is well known and accepted.
The content is separate from the distribution mechanism. You buy the license to use but the content remains the property of the publisher. Until they sell it to Electronic Arts, Ubisoft, or Activision. Or they sign a life-plus-seventy deal with a traditional publisher.
Edit:
The really funny thing is the digital editions are the ones with the truly transparent terms and conditions (for those bothering to read them). The codex editions serve notice of their terms and conditions through obscure shorthand: copyright notices, "all rights reserved", notices about not copying without permission, etc. All those are reminders that all you own is the right to read the content of the codex, not the content itself.
A century ago, circa 1910, the New York publishing establishment, upset that Macy's and other stores discounted books, started printing actual license terms inside the books, trying to prevent discounting. The stores sued. The court found that trying to control pricing of transferable licenses was not allowed and the doctrine of First Sale was born.