Hacker News Reader

Comment by nyolfen | Hacker News Reader

who cares, they can't take it from you

In this scenario I think the biggest issue with losing an account is the ability to aquire future purchases. But like I said, it's more a matter of principle for some. You own a book, you don't own a digital copy of a book.

This is the direction NFYs should have gone (could still go).

It would be great to be able to resell digital purchases, but that’s only on the consumer’s interest, so will never happen without an act of ${rule_making_body}.

This fundamentally does not work, because being able to copy is such an essential feature of electronic information. Think about it - you can never really "lose access" to information in the computer world unless you purposefully delete it completely, which cannot be realistically ensured.

I understand what's you're saying, that any digital scarcity is by design and therefore artificial.

But damn I wish my Steam library had a resale value.

As more games become unavailable for purchase (e.g., the recent nonsense Epic pulled with old Unreal games), it will.

If they sell you the digital copy, you own it.

If it says "license" on the button rather than buy then find another store...

This is not legal advice and is my own personal opinion.

On a related note, there ought to be a law that forbids the use of "BUY", "GET", or "PURCHASE" for things you would not in fact own. Instead, they should say "SUBSCRIBE" or "LICENSE".

I would also accept “RENT” or Long Term Rental

Those should be for licenses with an end date. "Subscribe" and "license" don't really imply there being a definite end date to your access, but nevertheless informs you that your access is contingent upon the continued existence of the business in question, unlike things you "buy".

To what bodies have you proposed such a law? I'm in total agreement with you.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com