Customers usually have rights to refund or partial refund if a purchase is not “fit for purpose” or “as advertised”.
If a game/movie/show is purchased on the offer of unlimited access now and into the future, and that access is then revoked, the customer should be by law entitled to compensation - either full refund if the product has never been used (which is surprisingly common), or a partial refund based on number or duration of times accessed.
Providers would be a LOT more careful about revoking access to purchased materials if that action had a monetary cost associated with it.
digital content stores already have you beat - their terms explicitly spell out that you acknowledge they can revoke the purchase at any time for any reason. So the product is exactly as advertised and no compensation would be due under your idea.
The better option is to just not shop on any platform that provides you a digital lease to content.
Not as advertised. But as per the t&cs. Many countries have truth in advertising lately s that the t&cs cannot override, but only clarify so if it’s outright misleading, the t&cs don’t matter.
Fun fact - terms and conditions are not legally binding. They are only a guideline that you must follow to use the product; so long as said terms and conditions abide by law, and they only apply going forward so long as the consequences for breaking the terms and conditions are also legal. In other words they can’t make you do anything - they can only tell you what they will do if you violate the terms, and they can’t make you, the user, do anything.
If a court one day says that you legally own the games you buy, all of these terms and conditions are legally null and void, and the company is in violation of the law if they revoke access.
Edit: in addition, if you buy a product in the US and sign a version of a contract (terms and conditions) and they change the conditions you are only beholden to the original conditions unless you consent to the new conditions. If you own the product they cannot take it away from you. This is why they are so insistent on you not owning anything.
I don’t think you know what legally binding means. By your definition laws are also not legally binding because they can’t make you do anything; they can only tell you what will happen if you break them.
You’re right in that no contractual obligation can override your rights (and their obligations). Nevertheless the breadth of the things to which you can give consent to (often unknowingly) is wild.
Contractual obligations cannot override laws does not mean the law is not legally binding. It just means that a contract cannot be put on an equal pedestal as a legal basis since a law can override it. Say a consumer protection law states you have a warranty that is tied to the device and not the purchase. But then the manufacturer put ToS/contract clause stating the warranty that comes with the device must be accompanied by sales receipt as well as the warranty card. Those clauses are not legally binding and if the company doesn’t honor the warranty, you can sue them for breaking said consumer protection law instead
Contractual obligations cannot override laws does not mean the law is not legally binding.
I think this is the one time I can pull out my fancy word knowledge and say: this is a non sequitur.
Also my original comment intended to point out the flaw in the above commenters argument (which argued that you can sue games companies that sell you digital games and then revoke licenses).
This why I only buy games on Steam for $20 or less. Once I’ve played them it’s not as big a deal if they disappear since I’ve spent more than that on lunch
The moment a product leaves the market without a plan - a game removed from your library or the FB portal TV unit being ditched without support - it needs to be opened or the full purchase price refunded. No record? Full price on day one.
If the vendor can’t possibly open it because they still value the IP then they need to support it the same.
RetroFed
sanitation
Share on Mastodon
Share on Reddit
Share on WhatsApp
Absolutely, but I’d be more specific.
Customers usually have rights to refund or partial refund if a purchase is not “fit for purpose” or “as advertised”.
If a game/movie/show is purchased on the offer of unlimited access now and into the future, and that access is then revoked, the customer should be by law entitled to compensation - either full refund if the product has never been used (which is surprisingly common), or a partial refund based on number or duration of times accessed.
Providers would be a LOT more careful about revoking access to purchased materials if that action had a monetary cost associated with it.
digital content stores already have you beat - their terms explicitly spell out that you acknowledge they can revoke the purchase at any time for any reason. So the product is exactly as advertised and no compensation would be due under your idea.
The better option is to just not shop on any platform that provides you a digital lease to content.
Not as advertised. But as per the t&cs. Many countries have truth in advertising lately s that the t&cs cannot override, but only clarify so if it’s outright misleading, the t&cs don’t matter.
Fun fact - terms and conditions are not legally binding. They are only a guideline that you must follow to use the product; so long as said terms and conditions abide by law, and they only apply going forward so long as the consequences for breaking the terms and conditions are also legal. In other words they can’t make you do anything - they can only tell you what they will do if you violate the terms, and they can’t make you, the user, do anything.
If a court one day says that you legally own the games you buy, all of these terms and conditions are legally null and void, and the company is in violation of the law if they revoke access.
Edit: in addition, if you buy a product in the US and sign a version of a contract (terms and conditions) and they change the conditions you are only beholden to the original conditions unless you consent to the new conditions. If you own the product they cannot take it away from you. This is why they are so insistent on you not owning anything.
I don’t think you know what legally binding means. By your definition laws are also not legally binding because they can’t make you do anything; they can only tell you what will happen if you break them.
You’re right in that no contractual obligation can override your rights (and their obligations). Nevertheless the breadth of the things to which you can give consent to (often unknowingly) is wild.
Contractual obligations cannot override laws does not mean the law is not legally binding. It just means that a contract cannot be put on an equal pedestal as a legal basis since a law can override it. Say a consumer protection law states you have a warranty that is tied to the device and not the purchase. But then the manufacturer put ToS/contract clause stating the warranty that comes with the device must be accompanied by sales receipt as well as the warranty card. Those clauses are not legally binding and if the company doesn’t honor the warranty, you can sue them for breaking said consumer protection law instead
I think this is the one time I can pull out my fancy word knowledge and say: this is a non sequitur.
Also my original comment intended to point out the flaw in the above commenters argument (which argued that you can sue games companies that sell you digital games and then revoke licenses).
Other than that, I agree with you.
This why I only buy games on Steam for $20 or less. Once I’ve played them it’s not as big a deal if they disappear since I’ve spent more than that on lunch
You can always change the terms and demand a refund, just like they can change the terms and demand more money.
The moment a product leaves the market without a plan - a game removed from your library or the FB portal TV unit being ditched without support - it needs to be opened or the full purchase price refunded. No record? Full price on day one.
If the vendor can’t possibly open it because they still value the IP then they need to support it the same.
Cool. I’ll talk to my buddy the space wizard detective about enforcing this.
These services rely on the group think of “but they wouldn’t…”