California recently became the first state to ban deceptive sales of so-called “disappearing media.”

On Tuesday, Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB 2426 into law, protecting consumers of digital goods like books, movies, and video games from being duped into purchasing content without realizing access was only granted through a temporary license.

  • Shortstack@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    ·
    2 months ago

    About god-damned time someone did something about that.

    Not great that it had to be California legislating it for the rest of the country but we’d pass out if we held our breath on Congress doing anything useful

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      2 months ago

      From an international perspective it does seem to be the only way you guys get any progressive laws implemented. Perhaps you should move the capital

  • helpImTrappedOnline@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    2 months ago

    without realizing access was only granted through a temporary license.

    That phrasing has me concerend. Does this also cover the services being shut down?

    “This is a permanent licence until we go bankrupt and you can’t access the content anymore”

    Purchase/buy should mean you get a downloadable DRM free file. And thing else is a rental.

    • TFO Winder@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Oh no that’s Piracy. That’s what these guys would say. They want to think you own the media but also you are not free to do what you want with it. Weird kind of ownership.

      • Landless2029@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 months ago

        The only games you BUY now are GOG. DRM free.

        You can download the installer and archive it. If GOG goes under you can still install and play it.

      • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months ago

        You buy the license to be able to view the media as many times as you wish. If I bought a copy of the Titanic on Google movies, or whatever it’s called, I’ve bought a license to view that movie for however many times I wish for as long as I wish. If Google decides to remove that movie then they need to either pay me back, or give me the right to download the movie.

        As long as I don’t share that download or make a torrent of it, then it’s not piracy.

          • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            2 months ago

            No they’re clever they only agree to arbitration if you’re suing them not the other way around. They are very careful to make that explicitly clear

  • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    39
    ·
    2 months ago

    This is an important first step in the right direction. Given the state of consumer law saying “anything goes if you agree to it” this may be the best initial way to start discouraging the practice of always online everything, helping preservation and being honest with consumers.

  • solsangraal@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    2 months ago

    what’s the defense? “people won’t buy it if they know they won’t own it!!! we’re entitled to all the money everywhere!!!”

    it’s not enough to have their cake and eat it too–they’re after your cake also

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

      Having it in Cali is the first step to it eventually being in more of the country. This is a good thing