• zer0squar3d@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    Yes, I understand that point. However, the point I am making is (going to make as black and white as possible, oversimplifying it on purpose):

    If you’re selling a digital product (a non physical item), and use any of the following terms:

    • buy (ex. Buy now, buy today, etc)
    • purchase (ex. purchase now, purchase today, purchase to play, etc)
    • Own (ex. Own today, own and play today, etc)
    • Copy (ex. Get your copy today, your copy is waiting, we have your copy waiting, etc)

    Then, I, as consumer of physical goods, being used to these types of wording meaning ownership of a copy without the ability of the manufacturer to come to my house and take the product away when they feel like or disable/remove songs, parts of movies or whatever by coming to my house and scratching off that part of the Blu-ray or DVD or whatever, should not be tricked into this by having to then read a 1000 word essay of legal speak saying you do not own what you are buying but are infact:

    • Renting
    • Licensing
    • Borrowing
    • Leasing

    Said product, then that should violate some law about false advertising.

    • kbin_space_program@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      Yes. Absolutely.

      However, no one has taken the companies that started doing that to task, and now even companies like John Deer have been pulling that shit.

      Hell, Monsanto actually took farmers to court on that principle for growing crops that had been naturally cross pollinated with “their” GMO crops using that principle.

      I am not disagreeing with you. I am stating what we have allowed the rich fucks to get away with.