• antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    10 hours ago

    Not exactly accurate. The button can still say Buy. The law says that they have to get extra acknowledgment from the buyer that they actually mean license. So it will say buy, and then it will pop up and say you aren’t buying the game, only a license, and then you have to click ok I understand. More nags. What we really need is another license agreement to pop up that nobody reads.

    • Comment105@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      6 hours ago

      The EULA is a wall of text that means nothing to most people, just like the TOS. The CLA (California License Agreement) or whatever this will be called with be no different, unless they specifically demand a very short and to the point.

      *"You are buying a game licence that can legally be revoked without providing a refund.

      Ubisoft can revoke the game license at any time for any reason.

      Ubisoft guarantees access to the license for 0 days."*

      I have no expectation that it will be that clear and concise.

      Edit: Looks like they have chosen not to discuss the language of the “clear expansion” at all. Likely because whoever wrote the law didn’t know the subject they’re regulating.

      From the article:

      The official phrasing in the bill’s summary reads, it will “prohibit a seller of a digital good from advertising or offering for sale a digital good, as defined, to a purchaser with the terms buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand.”

      Alternatively, storefronts can clearly explain that you’re buying a license and that your purchase isn’t a permanent transaction, meaning the license can be revoked at any time by the issuer. The most important part of the bill states that passing it will be “ensuring that consumers have a full understanding of exactly what they have bought.”

      It’ll probably be a wall of text like maybe a big fat paragraph and a little vague line at the bottom, or somehow manage to be short but still vague enough to not discourage sales while just barely straddling the line of being acceptable to the Californians who might one day end up bothering to look at how this ends up going, if they don’t forget to.

      • antlion@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        5 hours ago

        I was alarmed most by part B:

        (B)The seller provides to the consumer before executing each transaction a clear and conspicuous statement that does both of the following:

        (i)States in plain language that buying or purchasing the digital good is a license.

        (ii)Includes a hyperlink, QR code, or similar method to access the terms and conditions that provide full details on the license.

        The way I’m reading that it’s just going to say something like: “Attention, you access to this game which can be revoked or abandoned at any time. For more information follow this link and read the license. Press here to continue your purchase.” Nobody will read it.

        • Zoot@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          Hopefully (fingers crossed) the blurb even saying “Revoked at will” will finally out people on edge