TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

California new law forces digital stores to admit you're just licensing content

44 点作者 extesy8 个月前

6 条评论

hex4def68 个月前
This changes nothing, other than making companies replace all instances of &quot;buy&quot; with &quot;add to account&quot;.<p>What I&#x27;m more interested in are laws against &quot;changing the experience&quot;. You force a mandatory update that significantly changes the product in a way that I don&#x27;t like (removing features or cramming ads into a device I paid for), I should have the option to revert to the original as-bought configuration, or get a complete refund.
评论 #41673075 未加载
486sx338 个月前
“Renting” the content is a better description. Hopefully one day the pricing reflects that.
nioj8 个月前
Related discussions with more comments:<p>* Sony, Ubisoft scandals lead to California ban on deceptive digital goods sales (arstechnica.com) 110 comments, Sept 2024 | <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41665593">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41665593</a><p>* CA law means stores can’t say you’re buying a game when you’re merely licensing it (polygon.com) 122 comments, Sept 2024| <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41671838">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=41671838</a>
blackeyeblitzar8 个月前
How about all sales that involved “ownership” be forced to function as actual ownership, retroactively?
评论 #41664714 未加载
评论 #41665140 未加载
olliej8 个月前
I would rather they require the stores to sell the software not just change the wording for the existing BS.<p>Changing the wording to “license” just encourages “seasonal” licenses and no single payment option.
whycome8 个月前
The article refers to &quot;physical media&quot; as though that was previously representative of actual ownership. Adobe &quot;sold&quot; versions of its creative suite that are no longer installable even if you have the physical media: Because they &quot;had to shut down the activation servers&quot;. This practice should be part of that legislation - retroactively even.<p>Owners of a digitally disabled version should automatically get access to whatever the current version is. If Adobe isn&#x27;t okay with that, I&#x27;m sure they can find a way to run that obviously heavily burdened server to activate what must be millions of calls. &#x2F;s