At least that implies that the good is capable of being locked. “Buy” says that I’m buying the thing.

"Get."

If I go to an online store and buy a paperback, they will mail me a copy of it that I may keep for the rest of my life. I can read it 100 times if I want to.

Before this law, I could go through that exact process to get a e-book, but then they could come back later and revoke my ability to read the e-book that I “bought”.

Those two cannot use the same word. They are not the same class of transaction. The latter is more like a rental or lease. They both live behind a “buy” button, though.

If I’m told I’m buying an e-book, and the seller later steals it from me by making it unreadable, I have no qualms about obtaining a replacement copy through other channels. I already paid for it; I’m going to have and enjoy it.

You are buying an experience on that night. Similar to buying food at a restaurant

You aren't buying a bad faith argument.

Rather, he’s saying if someone sold something to you, you get to use it. I don’t think any further analysis of this comment will yield anything more.

Money can be exchanged for goods and services. (And licenses, but don’t obscure that point in the fine print.)

>If you had truly bought the game

I think this is the point. We want to truly buy with a Buy action, and license or subscribe with License and Subscribe actions. I'm sure people would be mad even if a Licensed or Subscribed item would cease to work, but it's more honest, than saying that someone Bought something.

If I buy a book, that does not give me the right to print 100 copies of the book and sell them. Indeed if I buy a lawnmower, that does not give me the right to make 100 identical copies and sell them. The right to manufacture something is not a fundamental part of purchasing an individual item.

You bought one license to the game which should be resellable exactly once by the purchaser.

I like the distinction - pirating isn't stealing, licensing isn't buying. Clear and concise.

In the physical world you buy physical copies of things. Certainly in the digital world, you could buy digital copies.

I challenge you to find me a major online store where a game's page says you are only buying a license. I just went to https://store.steampowered.com/app/582010/Monster_Hunter_Wor... and the first link says "Buy Monster Hunter: World". By every indication, I'm buying it in the same sense I buy a physical book from an online bookseller.

Now, fortunately, it's illegal to mislead customers that way.

Just like when you buy a book you’re allowed to photocopy it and sell the copies?

that's like saying if you bought a title to a bridge you would be within your legal right to resell it (via copying the title 100 times with a photo copier).

it's all just whatever people agree upon is the correct thing to do, and people don't agree that what you're saying is the correct thing to do.

It was the first time I've used e-id to sign and it felt like sci-fi.

thank you for supporting it!

Thanks for the work you and others at SKG are doing o7

I can’t view a video at the moment, so I apologise if this has been answered in that.

If the server software a game uses requires a licence to a third party library, what is the developer expected to do about that?

Does it work for citizens only, or legal residence also applies?

Btw, I'm not sure you should show a cookie banner if you're not tracking people. But you must be more knowledgeable than me.

> Capcom bringing back Windows 7 era games that were lost to G4WL.

At the same time adding the most invasive DRM to even their much older games. Lol, thanks for nothing, you can go.

signed already and thank you all for your hard work.

Not to pour cold water on anyone but consumers will be just as confused by "get access", because they'll expect that they'll have access indefinitely (which us not guaranteed and this doesn't change that).

> Mentally it's not too difficult to throw $60 at a digital "Buy" button, but it's much harder to throw those $60 at a "Get access" button.

This is especially true when a large number of games do have a buy button. "Get access" stands out as not being the same as buying when you've bought the rest of your game library.

> One thing to worry about, perhaps, is how it might make it easier for companies to remove things that we have "Gotten access" to

They are already doing it. The Crew is a good example. We are not losing anything here.

You see, I just don’t think more honest wins us anything. I’ve seen too many „We value your privacy” popups already.

> Words like "BUY" are also expressly forbidden.

I strongly disagree.

(b)(1) says that "buy" is not permitted for these goods... EXCEPT

(b)(2)(A) says that it IS permitted, if you follow the rules in subsections i through iii.

> (2) (A) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), a person may advertise or offer for sale a digital good with the terms “buy,” “purchase,” or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good, or alongside an option for a time-limited rental, if the seller receives at the time of each transaction an affirmative acknowledgment from the purchaser of all of the following:

My read on that is that either (b)(1) controls and you cannot use the words "buy" and friends, OR you do the things in (b)(2) and you CAN use "buy" & etc.

My read on subsection (ii) when combined with (i) is that simply "providing" the EULA for a digital software download and making the customer tick a box saying that they've "received" the EULA would be sufficient. If it's not (and it might not be), then having them scroll through the whole EULA to "prove" that they read it would clearly be sufficient, as it's common practice.

> (B) The affirmative acknowledgment from the purchaser pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall be distinct and separate from any other terms and conditions of the transaction that the purchaser acknowledges or agrees to.

Yes, but I think that this just means that this acknowledgement is a thing that's separate from the EULA, and separate from extended warranties, and such. The language that says that the customer must acknowledge that they received the license for the thing they're "purchasing" indicates that they must be -at minimum- given a chance to read the EULA... and I'm pretty sure common practice is to either provide a link to the EULA, or force you to scroll through it.

That's interesting. I don't for a second think this will actually curtail the harmful business practices, but what do you recon they'll write on their buttons? Maybe just dance around any meaningful verbiage with a button that just has a dollar sign or shopping cart on it? Just "Proceed" or "Confirm"?

That’s so naive. They’ll just replace terminology industry-wise and continue on the wave of irony about it.

Feels like regulators never were in kindergarten or at least school, could be a freshening experience for them, cause it all works like there.

Probably something like "Buy a pass to play"

California prop 65