California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill into law that won’t stop companies from taking away your digitally purchased video games, movies, and TV shows, but it’ll at least force them to be a little more transparent about it.

As spotted by The Verge, the law, AB 2426, will prohibit storefronts from using the words “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.” The law won’t apply to storefronts which state in “plain language” that you’re actually just licensing the digital content and that license could expire at any time, or to products that can be permanently downloaded.

The law will go into effect next year, and companies who violate the terms could be hit with a false advertising fine. It also applies to e-books, music, and other forms of digital media.

  • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    It’s way past time for a crackdown in regard to digital ownership. We’re living in a digital age now, where digital entertainment products have clearly outpaced physical products. We need to force companies away from the “rental store” mentality they’re insisting on. If we’re paying the same price for a digital copy of a product as it would be for a physical copy, then we deserve the same protections across the board.

    If I buy a movie, music, a book, or a game, I should have the right to save a local copy of it to use, in perpetuity, in any manner I please, not just for as long as the company decides I should be able to or for as long as the company exists.

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    I like how Factorio packages their game. You pay them $35 and then you can download and install on steam, get an installer through the website, or even just get a portable folder containing all of the game files.

    Great game by good people.

    • TurboWafflz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      I really wish they would do sales occasionally, I played the demo and really liked it but $35 is just a bit more than I want to spend on a single game

      • cynar@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        It’s a steal, even at full price, particularly once you account for the various mods.

        FYI, I’ve several friends who veto playing, or even talking about factorio. They can’t afford to lose 100s of hours of their lives again to cracktorio, and dont want to be sucked back in again. Take from this what you will.

          • cynar@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            Most people have an addiction button. The version for geeks and engineers is VERY hard to exploit at scale, to make money. Factorio pushes that button perfectly. It’s a sustained dopamine stream that little can match.

            On a completely unrelated note. Less than a month now! 😀

        • Wogi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          I haven’t played it since getting married. If I open the game, the factory must grow.

      • Pogbom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        If you look at it as dollars per time spent, it’ll probably be far better value than the majority of games you could get cheaper. Assuming you like it of course (but if you think you will, you probably will).

        • Semi-Hemi-Lemmygod@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          I’ve got over 1700 hours on Factorio, which makes it cost me 2¢ per hour of entertainment

          Though it’s a bit like drugs in that you really enjoy it at first and eventually you’re just trying to get your fix.

  • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 months ago

    Weird how the end stage of capitalism is really just a strange two tiered form of the kind of communism everyone was told to fear. So much for actually owning anything.

  • MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Why isn’t this a thing already? I mean, it’s USA, companies love to sue against illegal copies. No one got an argument like “I bought it so i was in the assumtion it belongs to me”?

    • wildn0x@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      2 months ago

      The big company has more money to lawyer up. If a company can’t win, they can drain the plaintiff dry of money through legal fees.

      • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I don’t understand why they don’t just charge both parties the average cost when one side has waaay more legal resources than the other. Seems like such an obvious issue with the legal system that even the founding fathers should have realized if they thought for a second.

        Or they did and this is the intended system.

        • cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          If anything, that would be worse. Imagine, you sue, and have a single lawyer, on a discount rate. They respond with a team of 100 highly paid lawyers. Your now paying 50-500x what your own lawyer is actually charging. This could also work in both directions.

          • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months ago

            Sorry what I meant is to pool both parties legal budget, divide it in half and give each the same amount.

            Basically disarms all corporates from using their army of lawyers because their big army will never give them an advantage. So they would actually avoid legal battles cause it would cost them money with no unfair advantage.

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 months ago

              Now, how do you define what a reasonable budget is? That basically becomes a fee to sue.

              • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                2 months ago

                Same as speeding tickets in Nordic countries, it’s a parentage of total revenue. Im sure these details can be ironed out but the idea is that a corp can’t use its unlimited resources, it has to share said resources with their opponent to ensure a fair trail, otherwise it’s not justice imo.

                • cynar@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  That would be very easy to weaponise, particularly against smaller companies. Once you’re dealing with lawyers, you need to assume that worst case scenarios will rapidly become the default. You also then end up with even more red tape, deciding who should pay what, prior to the trial even starting.

    • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fun Fact: If you as an individual bought a game, made a copy, and gave it away then you have done nothing wrong.

      Also, downloading an “illegal copy” for yourself is also legal. You have not distributed another person’s IP for profit, there are no laws against what you did.

      If you sold the copy it would be illegal. If you gave away 500 copies it would be illegal. But creating and sharing a backup is fine.

  • pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    no, dumbasses, the law should say “fuck you, if you sell it they own it”. not that you’re allowed to do whatever the fuck you want after they pay for your product as long as you say so first.

    • Wogi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      This may be careful wording to avoid it being struck down by the Supreme Court.

      Individual states have limited power to limit contracts. And while this may be a flimsy leg to stand on, SCOTUS may as well be the great American flamingo when it comes to standing on a single shakey leg

    • tb_@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      True. But as long as that isn’t the case, may as well fix the wording and raise awareness.

  • Fedizen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    I feel like the Magic The Gathering Online rule should be in play: if somebody sells a digital product you should be able to have them ship you a physical copy of the product at the cost of shipping it.

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    And the companies that pull this kind of shit have already amended their terms of service that nobody ever reads. More public grandstanding without actually doing anything. More failure theater.

    • douglasg14b@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      “I refuse to accept progress if it’s not perfect progress”

      Is what you’re effectively stating here.

      Cmon, really? I have this argument with my toddler when he asks for something like a rip off a loaf of bread. He wants the whole loaf, he can’t have the whole load, so he gets a choice: The piece you can have, or nothing.

      So. Would you rather have this progress, or nothing? That’s your choice, and right now it sounds a whole lot like you would rather have no progress?

    • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s actually true for most things if you think long term enough.

      You don’t really own things, you have control over them for a portion of your life.

      Would be pretty easy to argue that digital ownership is perpetual access for the rest of your life.

      But then they can’t resell you the same thing on different platforms.