this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
819 points (98.7% liked)
Technology
60116 readers
2552 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
In full? So the period where the content was accessible is valueless? Pulling the licenses is bullshit, but a full refund is equally asinine.
If Hyundai Kicks down your door down and takes your car. They don't get to say 'Well it was worthless per (depreciation math they made up)."
Yes, in full. Even Google did that when they shut Stadia. If you're a big company this is the cost of business. Even if it's just in store credit or whatever, wouldn't even cost them much.
Not sure why you're getting downvoted. This is true. People like to complain, but I'm sure somewhere in the TOS this was stated that you don't own it... Still a bad move to pull the content but I agree should not be full refund.
I get that people don't like paying for things. I don't mind paying, but I make myself aware of what I'm paying for. CONVENIENCE... Don't spend your money on bad platform's and services people. If you don't like how the business model of that company is, don't give them your money. Vote with your wallet.
It's not realistic to expect the average user to read and/or understand the TOS when making a purchase like this. The button that you click says buy, not rent until we decide your rental period is over. Shouldn't matter if it's stated in the TOS somewhere.
As far as not spending money on bad platforms, thats what this community is about. All the platforms are proving that they are bad.
My issue is the first line of your comment, that it's not realistic for the average user to read and or understand the TOS. You should not use the product if you have not done this. Period. And if you choose to not read and understand, then there is no more discussion to be had... Makes sense?
This is the Playstation TOS.
This is the definition of buy.
Expecting a normal person to read this entire document and realize that they changed the definition of buy about 3/4s of the way down from the dictionary definition is completely unreasonable. Read the entire TOS and list all the gotchas, without knowing which ones they are going to pull, then tell me what makes sense.
But you're proving my point, it's in the TOS... As I've mentioned in other relies, yes the wording should be changed, but it is there... Reasonable or not it's s in the fine print.
If you do not agree to those fine prints, do not agree to the TOS. You clicked or accepted somewhere at some point, so you do/did agree to this. If you do/did not, why did you accept the TOS in the first place?
I'm trying to drill home that just because you think it's shady, I do too, does not mean you did not agree to it in the first place.
Do not click accept if you do not accept a TOS.
The problem as I see it is a violation of expectations. If I "buy" something, there is no expectation that I will be deprived of that thing in the future unless, (A) it's a consumable and I e used it up, (B) it's capable of wearing out and I've done that myself, (C) it's a subscription service where you pay for the time You've used it.
In the case of digital assets that I've been sold, it can't be used up and it can't wear out. I did not subscribe to the digital asset, I bought it.
Violating the expectation of a purchase and then not fully making the buyer whole is trying to change the transaction type to a subscription after the fact.
If the digital content providers want to pull these kinds of tricks, then they can't tell us we are buying the content. They must be up front and tell us it's a rental whose length is undetermined. The rental may be for our whole lives, or not.
Anything else is a bait and switch and makes people angry.
I fully agree the wording should be 'rent'. I know when I use a digital service, I do not own these things, but have access to them via the TOS I agreed to. It's definitely shady to word it as 'buy' though, but that's what physical media if for... Again going back to the convince argument, if you want to own something tangible, buy physical.
Yep. These arguments get at a problem I have with a lot of the piracy community. Which is not paying for the movie, but still watching it just shows the rights holders that there is a demand for the product.
If people want the DRM BS to end it would be far more effective to not pay for it AND not watch it. Companies would do a rethink surprisingly fast if money and engagement with their products fell off a cliff.
But that requires sacrifice and inconvenience to the consumer, and consumers have a pathetic amount of resolve when it comes to doing something uncomfortable now for a better outcome later.
Sacrifice! Perfect way to put it. Can't have your cake and eat it too. Who cares if a show is good if the production/distribution company is evil, don't contribute to the stats. Ignore it and move on.