Is "buy it now" for licensed software false marketing?

BravO)))

BravO)))

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Jun 16, 2008
Messages
6,639
With the recent ban of members on the gta5 project called fivem, it got me thinking. Can they really say buy when you lease their licensed product? Imagine if you payed money for a car that said buy it now, only to find you were leasing it because they own the license? Not only that, but they take it away as soon as you put new wheels on it. My opinion is that you can not buy a license if you do not fully own it, and to imply buy when there is no full ownership is false advertising and marketing. All you are doing is leasing... Not buying. Two different things. Then again, I am no legal expert and this is imo.
 
I wonder what you would propose differently. How can you own tha software without "owning" the software?

I mean if I owned Doom3. That implies I can use their artwork, code, sound engineering any way I want? (Maybe I want to use their stuff and modify it and sell it as my own?) etc. etc. what kind of model can software exist where the creator maintains their intellectual property while also giving the end user irrevocable ownership?
 
I think your case is extreme, the content can be copy protected with rights, so no you cant use their work for your gains, financial or not.

But you can own the product in a manner that the software company can not take back said software because they wanted to, or because say, you do not agree to a new updates ToS.

Lets say Doom 3 decides to do an update and changes their ToS to say they can key log all info on your computer, if you say no, then you should still be able to use said software unchanged and working as it did prior to said update.

Otherwise the company has to provide a full refund of the product since the ToS is not what you agreed to when you "bought" the product.
 
'Lease' is a more accurate term than 'buy', but i don't think anybody is going to start changing the way they talk about it.

There is a long tradition of 'buying' licenses in the business software world. Despite many legal challenges to the licenses themselves I'm unaware of any serious challenge to the terminology.
 
Mozex said:
'Lease' is a more accurate term than 'buy', but i don't think anybody is going to start changing the way they talk about it.

There is a long tradition of 'buying' licenses in the business software world. Despite many legal challenges to the licenses themselves I'm unaware of any serious challenge to the terminology.
Click to expand...

I think the biggest discussion has been about ownership, but not how it is obtained. I am fine with leasing something, just don't say buy when it should be lease.
 
MrGuvernment said:
I think your case is extreme, the content can be copy protected with rights, so no you cant use their work for your gains, financial or not.

But you can own the product in a manner that the software company can not take back said software because they wanted to, or because say, you do not agree to a new updates ToS.

Lets say Doom 3 decides to do an update and changes their ToS to say they can key log all info on your computer, if you say no, then you should still be able to use said software unchanged and working as it did prior to said update.

Otherwise the company has to provide a full refund of the product since the ToS is not what you agreed to when you "bought" the product.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
You're buying the license, it's totally legal. You're not "leasing", you're licensing intellectual property. If you don't understand the concept I suggest you look it up, there's plenty of material available.
 
You're buying a license. You have bought it, and you now hold license to use the product under the terms it was licensed to you.

If you don't like it, don't use software that is licensed in the first place. There are many pieces of software that are not licensed, where your use is unencumbered by licensing terms and you are permitted to do anything (as long as it is legal to begin with) with the software. The majority of these software packages also have another benefit in that they are free.
 
I can see where you want to go but the courts are unlikely to support that ... software has almost always been licensed ... the risk of that license failing was lower previously since most software was standalone ... but as more games have moved online you are now bound by the terms and conditions for online access ... if you violate those online terms then a company can rescind your license ... generally your only recourse would be to seek an immediate refund after purchase and refuse to participate in the online conditions (short of that your license could cease to be valid for many reasons ... company goes under, they stop supporting the online environment, you violate their terms, etc ... none of these would generally necessitate a refund)
 
What I am getting at is the term buy implies to own. Imo, when it comes to the word license, it should not be referred to as buying. I understand how buying a license works, I just think that it's a masked definition. I can't buy services, I can't buy leases, etc... I can't own either one, but I can pay for them.
 
MrGuvernment said:
I think your case is extreme, the content can be copy protected with rights, so no you cant use their work for your gains, financial or not.

But you can own the product in a manner that the software company can not take back said software because they wanted to, or because say, you do not agree to a new updates ToS.

Lets say Doom 3 decides to do an update and changes their ToS to say they can key log all info on your computer, if you say no, then you should still be able to use said software unchanged and working as it did prior to said update.

Otherwise the company has to provide a full refund of the product since the ToS is not what you agreed to when you "bought" the product.
Click to expand...

So then what exactly are you "Owning"? when you throw things out like "own the product "

if you don't own the software then what exactly are you proposing you own? and how can you balance that with IP protection? all you have explained is a different type of licensing agreement (one that has more relaxed TOS), but have not proposed any Ownership of any kind. The words used by the OP were "you can not buy a license if you do not fully own it"

There is such a lack of education is this field that I start to cringe (especially here at the [H] where we should know better) that people who throw these types of "ownership" complaints around don't really even know what they are asking for..


So in essence what I get, is you'd like for more relaxed Terms of Service from software companies? if that is the case then lets discuss it in those terms and not "ownership" type of discussions because in the end, just by software's very nature, ownership is strictly used for the creators and those that own the IP Rights/Copyright.

even the GNU Public License is intended to protected the original creators to some degree, in the fact that if you Change something in their source code - you must notify future users that is indeed changed, the but GNU Public License TOS provides for a completely free and open source access (free of any retributal revocation of the license). Although termination of the GNU public license is even possible, if you don't follow the licensing rules.
 
BravO))) said:
What I am getting at is the term buy implies to own. Imo, when it comes to the word license, it should not be referred to as buying. I understand how buying a license works, I just think that it's a masked definition. I can't buy services, I can't buy leases, etc... I can't own either one, but I can pay for them.
Click to expand...

If this were to go to court they would look at the history of the use of the term buy as it applies to a software license. What is deceptive is that most software was self contained in the past. You were always buying a license to use the software (the companies just had no way to police the licensing except for Enterprise customers). However, with online environments and online validations they now do have that ability to police the licenses (and rescind them for license violators). I don't think you would find any support legally that buying software options didn't entail buying a license for the software.
 
H-street said:
So then what exactly are you "Owning"? when you throw things out like "own the product "

if you don't own the software then what exactly are you proposing you own? and how can you balance that with IP protection? all you have explained is a different type of licensing agreement (one that has more relaxed TOS), but have not proposed any Ownership of any kind. The words used by the OP were "you can not buy a license if you do not fully own it"

There is such a lack of education is this field that I start to cringe (especially here at the [H] where we should know better) that people who throw these types of "ownership" complaints around don't really even know what they are asking for..


So in essence what I get, is you'd like for more relaxed Terms of Service from software companies? if that is the case then lets discuss it in those terms and not "ownership" type of discussions because in the end, just by software's very nature, ownership is strictly used for the creators and those that own the IP Rights/Copyright.

even the GNU Public License is intended to protected the original creators to some degree, in the fact that if you Change something in their source code - you must notify future users that is indeed changed, the but GNU Public License TOS provides for a completely free and open source access (free of any retributal revocation of the license). Although termination of the GNU public license is even possible, if you don't follow the licensing rules.
Click to expand...

TOS? When did all software become a service? Software as service is a synonym for all purchases? EULA's aren't like the scriptures either. It is subject to interpretation by law.
 
BravO))) said:
With the recent ban of members on the gta5 project called fivem, it got me thinking. Can they really say buy when you lease their licensed product? Imagine if you payed money for a car that said buy it now, only to find you were leasing it because they own the license? Not only that, but they take it away as soon as you put new wheels on it. My opinion is that you can not buy a license if you do not fully own it, and to imply buy when there is no full ownership is false advertising and marketing. All you are doing is leasing... Not buying. Two different things. Then again, I am no legal expert and this is imo.
Click to expand...

Americans gave up their rights to fair use of software with the Vernor v. Autodesk, Inc. lawsuit some years ago. Since then we've been proverbially fucked when it comes to ownership of software. You own absolutely nothing in your Steam / Origin / whatever library. It can all be taken away without a refund at any time for any reason.
 
In order for you to make this argument I think you need to propose and alternative solution. IE a new or existing word for purchasing a software license. There are many things we buy or pay for which are products, services, or access to something that are similar to a software license which you don't own. So I would recommend seeing if any of those items have a word for what you buy. What makes software unique is that you are sort of buying something that is very open ended. A company like EA could shut down the master servers to your multiplayer game in 2 years flat. Or a company like valve could keep letting you run and download a game for over a decade. But in reality no company knows or can promise at the start any time frame, any support level or anything else because they don't know what computing will be like in 10 year or if they will even be in business.

But another argument is sometimes you just have to know shit. For instance I know that when I buy a 2x4 I don't really get a 2x4" piece of wood I get 1.5x3.5 inch piece of wood. And if you don't know that you will probably learn one day through the school of hard knock, not really fair but just the way the world works. Now I would agree that this is false advertising but its just an accepted way things work in the trade. And no one is likely to ever change it. I have witnessed in my life multiple times that people have tried to change words or nomenclature around something and in most cases it just flat out fails.

Another analogy is something like a season pass to an amusement park or ski resort. Mostly they say you buy it, but you don't own the ski resort, and most of the time you cannot transfer or sell your pass to anyone else, and especially not let someone borrow it.
 
rudy said:
In order for you to make this argument I think you need to propose and alternative solution. IE a new or existing word for purchasing a software license. There are many things we buy or pay for which are products, services, or access to something that are similar to a software license which you don't own. So I would recommend seeing if any of those items have a word for what you buy. What makes software unique is that you are sort of buying something that is very open ended. A company like EA could shut down the master servers to your multiplayer game in 2 years flat. Or a company like valve could keep letting you run and download a game for over a decade. But in reality no company knows or can promise at the start any time frame, any support level or anything else because they don't know what computing will be like in 10 year or if they will even be in business.

But another argument is sometimes you just have to know shit. For instance I know that when I buy a 2x4 I don't really get a 2x4" piece of wood I get 1.5x3.5 inch piece of wood. And if you don't know that you will probably learn one day through the school of hard knock, not really fair but just the way the world works. Now I would agree that this is false advertising but its just an accepted way things work in the trade. And no one is likely to ever change it. I have witnessed in my life multiple times that people have tried to change words or nomenclature around something and in most cases it just flat out fails.

Another analogy is something like a season pass to an amusement park or ski resort. Mostly they say you buy it, but you don't own the ski resort, and most of the time you cannot transfer or sell your pass to anyone else, and especially not let someone borrow it.
Click to expand...

So the law could be changed to something like this?:

Reserve the word/phrase "Buy now" for when you offer permanent ownership and use of a copy of your product while only obligated to respect the copyrights.

Making "Buy" illegal word to use when you are actually offering a license with any, by the seller, conjured up conditions for how the ownership and use may be rendered void. In that case require "License now". While you're at it then requiring a link to only those conditions displayed in a seperate document. Call it "license conditions".
 
hfk said:
So the law could be changed to something like this?:

Reserve the word/phrase "Buy now" for when you offer permanent ownership and use of a copy of your product while only obligated to respect the copyrights.

Making "Buy" illegal word to use when you are actually offering a license with any, by the seller, conjured up conditions for how the ownership and use may be rendered void. In that case require "License now". While you're at it then requiring a link to only those conditions displayed in a seperate document. Call it "license conditions".
Click to expand...

Why ... do you think that if the word license was used instead of buy that people wouldn't still purchase the license ... people are going to play these big AAA online titles regardless ... even if all the conditions are listed people will still assume that they are the one exception that will be able to get away with whatever banned activity they are interested in doing ... call it buy or call it license but games like Diablo, Grand Theft Auto, World of Warcraft, etc will still have the ability to ban you and block your access to their servers without refunding your "purchase" price for the software, license, etc
 
hfk said:
So the law could be changed to something like this?:

Reserve the word/phrase "Buy now" for when you offer permanent ownership and use of a copy of your product while only obligated to respect the copyrights.

Making "Buy" illegal word to use when you are actually offering a license with any, by the seller, conjured up conditions for how the ownership and use may be rendered void. In that case require "License now". While you're at it then requiring a link to only those conditions displayed in a seperate document. Call it "license conditions".
Click to expand...

So a handful of lawyers make a bunch of money and nothing substantive changes for the consumer? This is like when Apple changed the "FREE" button in the App Store to "GET." A bunch of lawyers and politicians in the EU got to feel real good about themselves and spend a bunch of taxpayer dollars, but people who were actually downloading apps didn't care at all and barely noticed a change.
 
CEpeep said:
So a handful of lawyers make a bunch of money and nothing substantive changes for the consumer? This is like when Apple changed the "FREE" button in the App Store to "GET." A bunch of lawyers and politicians in the EU got to feel real good about themselves and spend a bunch of taxpayer dollars, but people who were actually downloading apps didn't care at all and barely noticed a change.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why that would land an unwarranted amount of money at the lawyer thats not already heading that direction.. I'm just trying to make sense of OP's suggestion as it would create more transparency and simplicity for the consumer in understanding what they're getting. I think that's the premise of this thread.
 
hfk said:
I don't understand why that would land an unwarranted amount of money at the lawyer thats not already heading that direction.
Click to expand...

Look up the case surrounding the FREE -> GET transition in the App Store. This kind of language change occurs because someone gets sued for the way the words are written. When corporations and governments are involved in legal proceedings and all that happens for the consumer is "FREE" changing to "GET," the only winners were a bunch of lawyers who lined their pockets and politicians who get to grandstand about it.

If something results in "Buy" being changed to "License" it's not going to be a victory for the consumer, only whatever law firm is lucky enough to take the case to the top.

hfk said:
I'm just trying to make sense of OP's suggestion as it would create more transparency and simplicity for the consumer in understanding what they're getting. I think that's the premise of this thread.
Click to expand...

Changing the word "Buy" to something else won't accomplish that. It's just the label on the button you click to download the thing you want. If you want people to be informed consumers, you need to actually educate them, not use smoke and mirrors. One of the best ways is to create great quality media that people want to consume, and to make a big deal about the fact that you, as the creator, chose not to encumber your work under a restrictive license. Organizations like Creative Commons are doing a great job of both educating consumers about how licensing works and curating great collections of high-quality, desirable works that are available under unrestrictive licensing terms. There are real ways to make progress and change the status quo, but thinking like a lawyer about the language involved in the transaction is not one of them.
 
BravO))) said:
With the recent ban of members on the gta5 project called fivem, it got me thinking. Can they really say buy when you lease their licensed product? Imagine if you payed money for a car that said buy it now, only to find you were leasing it because they own the license? Not only that, but they take it away as soon as you put new wheels on it. My opinion is that you can not buy a license if you do not fully own it, and to imply buy when there is no full ownership is false advertising and marketing. All you are doing is leasing... Not buying. Two different things. Then again, I am no legal expert and this is imo.
Click to expand...

You're applying rules of the english language to legalese, and coming up with a fallacy where one does not exist.

You can buy a license. Buying does not legally imply ownership, simply the transfer of money for goods or services. So, when I hit "buy" for the delivery of some flowers for my wife's birthday, I don't get to own the delivery person and the flowers, just the flowers.
 
This has me thinking some more. Can you call software a license if the perceived control of said software is indefinite with a one time payment?
 
BravO))) said:
This has me thinking some more. Can you call software a license if the perceived control of said software is indefinite with a one time payment?
Click to expand...

Sure ... there are legal reasons they would refer to your access to the software as a license ... it controls what you can legally do with it (in some case, like the GTA incident, modding is not permitted) ... even with standalone software that doesn't rely on external servers they would still potentially consider the usage a license (this could be to limit second or third hand sales, modification of the program, etc) ... the other reason they might consider the access a license is cost (they don't consider the $50-60 paid for a game to be any more than a license fee and if they were granting more than a limited usage license that the cost would be more in line with Enterprise software, which has many more permissions in their licenses but is substantially more expensive)
 
The word "Buy," to me, means simply "Pay". Nothing more. Nothing about ownership. The English language can have many subtle but different meanings for the same word because of how it is used in context over time and also how the majority of the population relates a meaning to words that it is pointless to try to change it.

But as I already stated, when i am buying something, i am simply paying for something and that is the all I need to think about with regards to that term. Don't overthink things.
 
And also, with regards to the car lease analogy, technically you cant change the wheels or modify stuff like speakers or aftermarket stereos. But if you can change it back to original before the lease is up, then thats the loophole. Plus they arent that strict and they are understanding usually. But again, if i put aftermarket speakers and i had to cut the hole bigger for bigger speakers, at the end of the lease they could charge/fine for that.

So i guess i am saying its not so different from licensing the software and worrying about then cancelling the deal if you dont adhere to the licensing terms. One buys/pays for whatever was agreed upon. In this case it was a license for the use of the game.
 
BravO))) said:
This has me thinking some more. Can you call software a license if the perceived control of said software is indefinite with a one time payment?
Click to expand...

A license is the transfer of anything less than the transfer of a whole ownership interest.
 
I personally would prefer if the terminology would change. It would make the average joe (who really thinks 'buy means 'purchase to own') understand the sad truth about software: They don't own it, nor do they own rights to use it, and that the software owner can remove rights to use without reason at any time.

Yeah Yeah, lawyers this, government that... but language MATTERS. Words make a difference. maybe not immediately, but they have a long-lasting cultural impact.
 
KazeoHin said:
I personally would prefer if the terminology would change. It would make the average joe (who really thinks 'buy means 'purchase to own') understand the sad truth about software: They don't own it, nor do they own rights to use it, and that the software owner can remove rights to use without reason at any time.

Yeah Yeah, lawyers this, government that... but language MATTERS. Words make a difference. maybe not immediately, but they have a long-lasting cultural impact.
Click to expand...

How is buying a license any different than any number of other subscription services I can buy ... I can buy an Internet Service Package (and be dropped from said package if I violate their terms) ... I can buy a membership to any number of clubs or services and be dropped if I violate their terms ... I can get a frequent flyer membership for free and be banned from said service (including the loss of any miles or other benefits), if I violate their terms ... I can buy a movie ticket and be ejected from the theater if I violate their rules ... do you see a trend here :D

Is buying a software license that unusual or problematic :cool:
 
kbrickley said:
How is buying a license any different than any number of other subscription services I can buy ... I can buy an Internet Service Package (and be dropped from said package if I violate their terms) ... I can buy a membership to any number of clubs or services and be dropped if I violate their terms ... I can get a frequent flyer membership for free and be banned from said service (including the loss of any miles or other benefits), if I violate their terms ... I can buy a movie ticket and be ejected from the theater if I violate their rules ... do you see a trend here :D

Is buying a software license that unusual or problematic :cool:
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right, but most people outside the tech circle don't realize that games and apps are licensed instead of owned. In my mind "Buy" Means "Exchange Money for ownership", and you can "Buy" a license. You will then "Own" a license, but the nature of owning said license is different from the nature of owning that which the license permits you to access.

In other words, "Buy" is an inappropriate term when used as: "Buying Videogames"

But it is completely fine for "Buying Licenses to Play Videogames".

Right now the market says "Buy Videogames". This is wrong and misleading.
 
BravO))) said:
This has me thinking some more. Can you call software a license if the perceived control of said software is indefinite with a one time payment?
Click to expand...
Asked an answered: a license is ANYTHING but the complete transfer of ALL ownership rights.If I sell you a piece of software, and the ONLY thing I keep for myself is the ability to ping it once a year with a 1kb file update, it's a license. Technically.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top