Why was it ever allowed for companies to make unilateral contracts with no representation or limits? The entire ecosystem of digital platforms is full of absolutely ridiculous terms and agreements.
Not only there is no reason why digital media shouldn’t be treated as a regular purchase, they want it both ways. Digital storefronts don’t say “license” or “rent”. They say “Buy”, because they know people want to buy it, and many of them wouldn’t pay if they couldn’t buy it. It’s downright deceptive that they label the transaction as a purchase then put a wall of legalese on some corner saying “actually ‘buy’ does not mean buy”.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !technology@beehaw.org
A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.
Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.
Why was it ever allowed for companies to make unilateral contracts with no representation or limits? The entire ecosystem of digital platforms is full of absolutely ridiculous terms and agreements.
Not only there is no reason why digital media shouldn’t be treated as a regular purchase, they want it both ways. Digital storefronts don’t say “license” or “rent”. They say “Buy”, because they know people want to buy it, and many of them wouldn’t pay if they couldn’t buy it. It’s downright deceptive that they label the transaction as a purchase then put a wall of legalese on some corner saying “actually ‘buy’ does not mean buy”.
That’s the funny part, they aren’t allowed to. But they know no one is gonna bother to sue then over it.
Those ridiculous terms of service are null and void when challenged in court.