They’re not purchases, they’re leases.
Edit: it’s actually that you purchase access to their license of the media.
Edit: Sorry, meant to reply to the comment above you!
They’re not really leases either. Leases last for a defined period of time, like “one year,” or they renew at regular intervals, like “monthly.” “Pay up front and we’ll let you keep this license for either forever or until we decide to revoke it without notifying you” isn’t the same thing.
Same thing that Sony did with movies on the PS. “You’re buying a revocable licence”
Pretty much all the big tech firms have done this. The problem is we only blame the middlemen. We blame Sony or Amazon, or Google or whoever. But the companies providing the licenses for them to “sell” are a big part of the problem. And nobody ever wants to listen when I say this but they should be on the hook too. Like, I appreciate that it’s messed up to have your purchased media shadow ganked. But at the same time it’s fucked up to have the licensing agreements be what they are to start with and that’s absolutely on companies that own the rights to digital media. Who continue to lobby to maintain the status quo.
Are they really? Didn’t you press a button that said “Buy”? Just because they want things to be something else, doesn’t mean that the meaning of the words changed.
It’s pretty clear that you’re leasing a car when you do it. Make it like that.
I’ve just had a look on the Play Store, and they notably don’t use the word “buy” anywhere that I can see. The button to “buy” the app is just a button with the price on it, and clicking through that it uses the language of “install”.
Can’t help but think that that’s deliberate.
It’s also a private company and they can do whatever they want on their platform and their property.
It’s like renting space in an apartment … don’t be surprised if the landlord decides to change the agreements and do things you don’t like. You’re renting things, you don’t own anything.
You can’t arbitrarily change agreements for renting without consent or lease renewal. At least not in civilized countries.
I’m not defending or condoning it … I was just pointing out something for what it is. I keep my purchases, rentals and anything paid for to a minimum with services like Google, Amazon or any other cloud or electronic service. They are not purchases of ownership, they are marketed as things that we buy and own indefinitely but in legal terms, they are more or less indeterminate rentals or leases from the company with terms that can be set by the company that controls them.
I agree, in terms of comparing to an apartment rental, there are more laws because the thing that is involved severely affects a person’s life because we’re talking about a roof over a person’s head.
But in terms of electronic or digital items or services that only exist online, it’s a lot easier to remove / change / delete them because these actions won’t put you out on the street, make you starve or physically hurt you in any way. We lose the convenience and we lose out on something.
I’m not belittling any of it, I wouldn’t want to lose anything I paid for either but at the same time, we have to understand that when we sign up to pay for something with a multi billion dollar corporation, we hardly have any rights to anything, agreed to or implied … and if we argue that in court, the one with the most money wins.
Your argument is cargo-cult libertarian bullshit. There are lots of things private entities can’t do on “their property!” Murdering visitors, for example. Fraudulently claiming a sale isn’t really a sale is right up there with that in terms of how clear-cut the rule is.
What we have here is squarely a failure of the FTC to do its goddamn job. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think everyone took there comment in the wrong light. They’re not defending Google, but rather pointing out that this behavior should be expected from a for profit company, and thus people should have avoided the situation in the first place. Not that it should be that way, but we live under capitalism unfortunately, and people need to be way more skeptical of these companies.
Rather than blaming inaction of the FTC, why not just stop using play store all together and encourage people to use Fdroid instead? Companies will never stop abusing ‘e-goods’ , it’s just not going to happen. People should just get beyond ownership and embrace the advantages of free software.
Because you signed (digitally) an agreement that lets them do that.
Pirate everything.
If you have an Android, they are increasingly making it impossible to not use them. They continue to punish users that choose to unlock the bootloader or root, and Google Play Services are an inescapable prerequisite to many apps, regardless of side loading ability.
Don’t buy games on Steam or Valve Corporation, they make you sign the User Agreement that legally waves your rights and ownership of games.
Actually, Steam is usually one of the best places when it comes to refunds. The process is simple, and they’re willing to make exceptions to the rules. And the company is run by one of the few CEOs in the gaming industry who seem to actually understand gaming.
Read by almost no one, it is interesting because in many countries contracts are considered invalid if one of the parties is not properly informed and still accepts, affirmative consent is legally crucial.
Everyone knows that EULAs violate it systematically, tens or hundreds of millions a day, but it doesn’t seem to be a matter of interest.
Whenever I see a checkbox or something that just says “Check here to confirm you accept our privacy policy” I think it’s funny because all I am legally agreeing to are the words actually in front of me. Sure, I agree with the standalone words “our privacy policy”. I’m not sure what that does for you, but i guess “our privacy policy” is an acceptable string of words.
Imagine how hard it would be to buy stuff or use free services if you actually had to read and understand the contracts every time.
Ok, I’ll just quickly check on Google maps what’s south of Mongolia. Oh, I need to read all that before seeing the map? Well, maybe later. Don’t really have the time for that right now.
If that’s what life was like, laziness would win nearly every time and companies would have hardly any users or customers. Eventually some companies would probably make super short contracts in order to lower the threshold.
I can already see it: “We’ll do whatever we want without accepting any responsibility and we’ll spy on you to monetize it. Click here to accept.”
It’s a complicated issue, maybe with summaries, requiring affirmative consent only for certain actions, or splitting them up? I don’t know, it all seems messy. But I hope it leaves behind the expectation that we lie by agreeing to sell your firstborn’s soul after reading for hours in legalese.
Additionally, we can try to change the laws so we do actually own a copy.
But we never owned a copy of any software or movie ever. We always had a license to watch or use the copy we purchased.
This is rage inducing.
Imagine if your car dealer was allowed to confiscate your car on a dubious claim such as “it doesn’t meet the latest emissions standards,” but not even telling you that.
Google needs to be fined twice the value of the apps that it stole from it’s paying customers.
“Tesla has a new feature that will disable your seat controls if you keep messing with them”
https://www.theverge.com/2022/1/31/22911072/tesla-seat-controls-disable-lock-out-brose
This is so stupid. Why would a company put this much effort to lock down the seat controls, as if they didn’t already exist without limits on every other car? Not even with a toggle? These companies are really trying to destroy the “cars = freedom” association.
They get disabled for 5 minutes, probably to give the motors time to cool down.
One of the most important parts of purchasing a car is the title being signed over and that transfer being registered with the state. You never own the title to an app.
Because they have more money than you and, according to the US legal system, that’s all that matters.
It’s purchasing ≠ owning, then piracy ≠ stealing
I don’t believe piracy is treated as stealing from a legal sense, already.
That’s true. If I steal 20 copies of some avengers movie from Walmart and give them away on the street, I’ll pay a couple thousand dollars in fines, tops. If I’m caught seeding an avengers movie to one person downloading from me in Serbia, I’ll be fined more money than most people make in their entire lives
Outside of programming circles I’ve been surprised how little people know what != means.
Despite claims, math and logic are not important skills according to many.
Ok but this isn’t purchasing outright it is basically leasing. It says so in the tos. The issue here is ppl don’t read tos or they don’t care and pay anyway. Ppl like that have zero right to complain.
Lol everyone of you idiots are proving my point and making tons of idiotic assumptions like I’m anti piracy. Y’all need some logic lessons.
How dare the average person not have the time or attention span to read a 28 page document in legalese that explains what exactly they’re doing
It’s not like purposefully dense and overlong TOS is a known strategy to hide bullshit that later gets thrown out in court or anything
That person probably also think people who get shot are stupid for not moving out of the bullet’s path. “It is not so hard, it moves in a straight line you idiots”.
The button to install a paid app literally says BUY. If that doesn’t mean purchase I don’t what else it could mean.
It’s literally just a convention, a design choice. It doesn’t really mean anything.
Yeah, okay, except the iTunes and Facebook TOSes are longer than King Lear. Eventually a judge nullified a TOS on the basis that no-one ever reads those anyway.
Thanks to odious TOSes, the average American commits three felonies a day, violations of the CFAA for which some whistle-blowers and journalists are serving sentences similar to [assassin] Scott Roeder (for the murder of Dr. George Tiller). The rest of us are not serving such sentences but for one officer or official who wants us to disappear.
In the meantime journalists continue to get charged with such violations, usually when their investigating something embarrassing to current administrations. The EFF has repeatedly raised a stink about this, but hasn’t yet been able to change the law.
If your kid is under 13 and has social media accounts on specifically kid-friendly platforms (that, themselves teem with predators, salesfolk and law enforcement) then your kid is committing major federal crimes. On the light side, they totally have haxxor cred.
I recall a while back someone did a study that there are not enough hours in the day for an average person to actually read all the TOS documents they’re expected to agree to. The idea that people can or should be responsible for knowing what’s in a TOS is a legal fiction.
Some people don’t get how you can separate understanding the logic of something and not supporting it at the same time.
Don’t worry, that is normal. Im getting laughed at left and right for having my own root-server with all my services running on it, all FOSS.
Most of them were born with google already existing, it is part of nature. They haven’t seen a giant go down yet.
