California Assembly Bill 2426 (AB 2426), effective 1 January, 2025. Expands the state's false advertising laws to explicitly ban companies from using words like "buy," "purchase," "own," or "keep" if what the customer is actually getting is a revocable digital license governed by shady T&Cs.

It’s good but will ultimately end up like the GPDR popups. Everything will say rent, won’t change the fact that you can’t actually own anything. The law should instead give us real ownership.

Apple was sued for having revoking access to hundreds of movies that a customer purchased. They tried to claim that "No reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely".

Sadly the case was settled, see: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation/apple-settles-alleg...

They'll argue you're "buying" a license that they can revoke when they feel like it. My feelings on the matter have been summed up by someone else more clever than me as:

If buying isn't owning, then piracy isn't stealing.

I'm hoping someday this will go the same way as other companies trying to redefine "unlimited", "free", or "lifetime". I hope lawyers reclaim "buy", "own", and "purchase" from shitbag marketers back into contract law, where they have English meanings.

https://retailwire.com/t-mobile-att-verizon-fined-10-2m-for-...

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2024/07/lawsuit-t-mobile...

At the very least, if Sony yanks your purchase, they should merely refund it in full.

Not even "Rent". Rentals are priced by the time you rent for. If you want to rent something for 30 years, you can, and you'll keep paying for 30 years.

This is a one-time cost and you just don't know when they're going to snatch it back from you. They won't tell you. They won't even give you a notice period. They don't know themselves. They only find out when the licensor they're sublicensing from demands "too much" for ongoing licensing and they just give up and pretend they didn't sell you that and take your money.

The button would have to be "Licence, subject to unilateral revocation at any time."

Laws like that are just going to give rise to new tortured wording. You're buying a revocable license to view the content under certain conditions. It was already in that territory even with physical media; that's what region locking is. Likewise, if bitrot set in and your disc became unplayable, the distributor didn't send you a new one. You never had a perpetual, irrevocable, and otherwise unrestricted license to view that content.

I'm not saying that it is not worth trying to fix this, but now that the technology enables content owners to more fully control your access, they're not going to be keen to relax that only to leave that money on the table.

"we're training the public that they're 'buying' a revokable license, not the song" ~MPAA ;)

At the same time, I expect consumers to have a skosh of sense - I would never expect a third party to hold any sort of digital media remotely for me, in perpetuity, just because I gave them a few bucks. I know they should, based on allowing consumers to “buy” movies but, at the same time, I have a good enough understanding of the world to know that’s not likely.

Pretty sure you could get some action from the ACCC here in Australia if you go through the process to lodge a complaint.

If Walmart sold you a lawnmower, but you had to leave the lawnmower in their store, would you consider it your property just because they let you start it up and hear it rumble?

If you wouldn't do that for Walmart, why would you do it for Sony?

Unrelated, but that is such an unfortunate acronym.. There's no way the people who perpetuated it didn't know what they were doing

I propose, let's see..

Definitely Isn’t Legal Doctrine, Obviously

or.. Based Only On Basic Speculation

perhaps Consult Official Counsel, Kindly

or more succinct, This Isn’t Trained Solicitor Advice