California Governor Gavin Newsom has signed a bill into law that won’t stop companies from taking away your digitally purchased video games, movies, and TV shows, but it’ll at least force them to be a little more transparent about it.

As spotted by The Verge, the law, AB 2426, will prohibit storefronts from using the words “buy, purchase, or any other term which a reasonable person would understand to confer an unrestricted ownership interest in the digital good or alongside an option for a time-limited rental.” The law won’t apply to storefronts which state in “plain language” that you’re actually just licensing the digital content and that license could expire at any time, or to products that can be permanently downloaded.

The law will go into effect next year, and companies who violate the terms could be hit with a false advertising fine. It also applies to e-books, music, and other forms of digital media.

  • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    79
    ·
    edit-2
    13 hours ago

    It’s way past time for a crackdown in regard to digital ownership. We’re living in a digital age now, where digital entertainment products have clearly outpaced physical products. We need to force companies away from the “rental store” mentality they’re insisting on. If we’re paying the same price for a digital copy of a product as it would be for a physical copy, then we deserve the same protections across the board.

    If I buy a movie, music, a book, or a game, I should have the right to save a local copy of it to use, in perpetuity, in any manner I please, not just for as long as the company decides I should be able to or for as long as the company exists.

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      ·
      edit-2
      12 hours ago

      Not only that, but the ability to transfer or even sell your license. If I can gift or sell a book or DVD, I should be able to do the same with a game or digital movie.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Something like smart contracts on ethereum using NFTs is actually a perfect use for this and where the future is heading.

        You get a fraud proof authorization token that cant be duplicated that let’s you access the content. It can be sold or transferred without needing the company to still exist and can still unlock the content even years after they’re bankrupt.

        The only thing left is how do you host the content so it survives beyond the company going out of business. The company themselves could host it initially, but eventually it’d need to end up on a public torrent site or some other distributed sharing network otherwise it could vanish. But that’s also a digital media problem in general.

        Edit: also like any DRM people that want to break it can go as far as altering source code to remove the checks, they do that today, this wouldn’t change it. But this is a path for people trying to do the right thing on all sides. They haven’t stopped selling digital content because people can bypass things.

        • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 hours ago

          Something like smart contracts on ethereum using NFTs is actually a perfect use for this and where the future is heading.

          Where the future is heading is bullshit stupid technology some idiots think they can make money from driving a climate crisis that kills us all. And then we won’t have to put up with bullsht stupid technology pushed by idiots. Good riddance.

            • Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              Generative AI is already doing that. Tech is an extension of human activity, and as humans are observably machines for making their human world worse for each other, trust tech involves some level of harmful ignorance.

        • linearchaos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 hours ago

          Could you imagine those ledgers trying to process when everyone in existence tries to insert hundreds to thousands of unique licenses. Then having to continuously access records on every media use after that.

          How many unique copies of media are there out there. Hundreds of billions, trillions. I don’t think we have anything adequately designed at this point that could handle that kind of load.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 hours ago

            Thats not how it’d work. The blockchain will generate the NFT but the NFT can authorize itself. You can do offline signatures that will prove you own the token and thus own the media. It doesn’t need to check in with anything online to pass a validity check once it’s issued.

            The token is unique, the media is just out there exactly like it this today. How many billions of copies of songs have been download from iTunes?

            Edit: And layer 2s will be able to handle 100,000 TPS or more in the future for the initial issuance. I didn’t say today, I said where the future is heading. That’s 3,153,600,000,000 transactions a year, and it’s going to be more than that.

        • JPAKx4@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 hours ago

          I wish this were true, but unless companies were forced to stop licensing then they’ll never do that. And even then, if the company decided to not sell smth anymore or stop supporting it or they went out of business you still wouldn’t be able to get things legally a lot of the time.

          • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            6 hours ago

            And even then, if the company decided to not sell smth anymore or stop supporting it or they went out of business you still wouldn’t be able to get things legally a lot of the time.

            I don’t think that’s an issue unless it’s an online service that they host the servers on, but for something like a book, even if they decided to stop selling it (aka minting new NFT tokens to access it) all the existing tokens would still work and trading would work.

            We can’t really do anything about online services though unless a law requires a company to allow self hosting if they close down, which would be a great law to have.

            Edit: just to clarify further, the token is the ownership at this point. Having the protected content anywhere on the internet and downloading it without a token isn’t theft, it’s just there and legal, inaccessible without the token. It could just be on a public torrent for download from day 1 for anyone to download with or without a token. Also the content could even link to the smart contract to purchase a token to unlock it. So a movie player would see a unauthorized movie with a buy now button. It could even be a token that unlocks it for a 24h rental. Unless the media owner kills the contract intentionally, it’ll be purchasable as long as the blockchain it’s on exists.

            I wish this were true, but unless companies were forced to stop licensing then they’ll never do that

            I think we’ll see someone experiment with this eventually even without a law. There’s a lot of upset out there about not being able to resell digital content and it suddenly being taken away.