• Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    8 months ago

    A “purchase” or “buy” option, especially when you get an invoice, should ALWAYS mean ownership of the product.

    A “borrow” or “rent” option is one that you expect to have to return the product.

    Google can’t have it both ways. They either sold people software or they rented it out. Since it was never advertised or marketed as the Google Play Rental Library, they should be forced to give people the products they paid for.

    • starman2112@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yup, I’ve said it a million times, it needs to be made flatly illegal to use language that implies ownership if the company has any method of revoking your ownership of that product in the future. These threads always get the same libertarians that show up in discussions about non-functional slack fill saying “it’s not illegal, so what’s the problem?” The problem is that it isn’t illegal. Imagine if Toyota could come grab your car from your driveway, because even though you paid it off, subclause 74 of section G(2) says that the company retains the right to repossess property made by them at any time for any reason. You didn’t read a 200 page contract at the dealership when you bought the car, you just trusted that they wouldn’t fuck you. Toyota would get their ass reamed in court if they tried that, so why are Google and Microsoft and Sony and Steam allowed to do it?