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

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Scope and intent of the California law

  • Law targets deceptive use of “buy” for digital goods where access can later be revoked.
  • Applies broadly to copyrightable works (games, movies, books, music), not just games.
  • Statute exempts digital goods that can be downloaded for offline use in a way the seller cannot later revoke; unclear if platform‑locked formats (e.g., Kindle) qualify, since access can still be killed via proprietary software.
  • Some see it as reinforcing the First Sale Doctrine for digital contexts and pushing back against “you bought it” rhetoric when it’s really a license.

Debate over terminology (“buy”, “rent”, “license”)

  • Many want “buy” reserved for traditional ownership with resale and non‑revocable use.
  • Alternatives debated: “rent”, “lease”, “license”, “revocable license”, “temporary access”, “conditional allowance”.
  • Objections:
    • “Rent” implies recurring payments or short, fixed periods.
    • “Lease” implies a fixed term, unlike today’s indefinite‑until‑revoked model.
    • “License” feels too legalistic and still vague without clear duration.
  • Some predict marketing will just shift to “buy a license” or neutral verbs like “Get” or “Pay”.

Ownership, first sale, and digital vs physical media

  • Physical discs/cartridges historically conveyed durable, transferable use; digital licenses are non‑resellable and revocable, including at inheritance.
  • Modern “physical” games often just contain download stubs or codes, weakening First Sale in practice.
  • Many commenters see server shutdowns and delistings as consumer‑hostile; campaigns like “Stop Killing Games” are cited as responses.

Consumer expectations, refunds, and duration

  • Dispute over what’s “fair”: some say $60–70 for many hours of entertainment is fine even if access later disappears; others argue the core problem is misrepresentation and undefined duration.
  • Suggestions:
    • Explicitly advertise time‑bound licenses (e.g., 5‑year access with server support).
    • If fully prepaid up front and called “perpetual,” revocation should require refunds.
    • Courts may eventually impose an implied minimum usability period.
  • Platforms like Steam are viewed as relatively consumer‑friendly today (refunds, continued downloads of delisted games), but commenters emphasize this is voluntary and could change.

Broader worries: property, DRM, and data

  • Several see a long‑term trend where contract law and DRM erode traditional property rights, making it risky or illegal to exercise practical control over what you “own”.
  • Concerns extend to:
    • Cars and devices with remote control, anti‑repair, and no‑resale constraints.
    • A potential future where general‑purpose computing and offline ownership disappear.
    • Data and cloud services (e.g., photos or purchased music becoming inaccessible without ongoing payment).
  • Some advocate supporting DRM‑free media and enlarging the cultural commons as a counterweight.