860

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] ravhall@discuss.online 154 points 1 month ago

Alternatively, make laws protecting digital ownership and the right to resell that ownership on any market.

[-] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 77 points 1 month ago

Yeah, this feels like validating a toxic business model when they should be dismantling it

[-] L0rdMathias@sh.itjust.works 12 points 1 month ago

Why would a high profile politician in the United states do something that is for the benefit of their people? Weak leaders do not generally make strong decisions.

[-] Infynis@midwest.social 11 points 1 month ago

This will start to protect some people, and bring awareness to the issue, allowing for further regulation in the future, once public demand for it has increased

[-] sramder@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

We’re calling it Proposition #66 😉

[-] athairmor@lemmy.world 14 points 1 month ago

My first thought was that it would be a nightmare verifying who owns what and how to transfer ownership.

Then it occurs to me, could this a legitimate use of blockchain?

[-] Artyom@lemm.ee 12 points 1 month ago

There are a ton of legitimate uses for blockchain, but so many scammers loved it that it killed any momentum to use it where it works.

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 12 points 1 month ago

Yeah, there's nothing wrong with blockchain technology, but Surprise! the people most interested in unregulated financial systems are thieves and scammers. Who could have guessed.

[-] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Each new token needing more computing power is not an issue?

[-] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 7 points 1 month ago

This is a constraint designed into bitcoin to produce artificial scarcity so that the volume of tokens doesn't massively inflate and destroy their value. A blockchain doesn't have to operate this way if the goal is to produce unique tokens as identifiers rather than as currency.

[-] Serinus@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

Any time you see the word "Blockchain" substitute "distributed public database" instead. And then consider if the distributed part contributes in any way.

[-] ravhall@discuss.online 1 points 1 month ago

For example, if you have the movie on apple movies, and you want to sell that movie to a friend, you take their money and initiate the transfer of ownership from writhing apple movies.

Of course, you’re responsible for the money transaction.

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 10 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

this is how college works too. textbooks are mostly digital e-books now. same price as the print versions, but of course impossible to buy used or sell back, and your license (and access) expire after a year. some of them disable copy and paste and limit printing to a couple pages. oh, you got a book you actually wanted to keep? fuck you.

[-] otp@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 month ago

I remember when this was first starting, the digital copies were like 30% cheaper. A lot of people, including myself, took them up on it because it made most things easier. (Especially when publishers would be coming out with new editions every year and many profs just made the new edition the required one regardless of any substantial differences)

[-] solsangraal@lemmy.zip 9 points 1 month ago

and look how far we've come...

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

I remember that. We'd be told digital copies were cheaper, but those copies (and older versions of the textbook) wouldn't include access keys to additional content that our professors required us to have. In other words, if we didn't have the absolute latest textbook (and/or paid an additional fee for an individual access key), we couldn't do our homework. It's been years since I've been in school, but I find it hard to imagine textbook publishers have stopped that money-grab. Can any current students confirm/deny if that's still the case?

[-] otp@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 month ago

Not a current student, but know some in tech programs. At least in colleges (as opposed to universities), a lot of professors have been moving away from textbooks. But maybe the students I know are just lucky, lol

There are still publishers who do exactly what you describe. Pearson was doing maybe 10% off for the digital copy. You could buy used textbooks, but then you'd need to buy the "digital pass" for the homework, which was more than half the cost of the book (and it wouldn't give any digital access to the book itself).

this post was submitted on 26 Sep 2024
860 points (99.8% liked)

News

23360 readers
1857 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS