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.

  • athairmor@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    My first thought was that it would be a nightmare verifying who owns what and how to transfer ownership.

    Then it occurs to me, could this a legitimate use of blockchain?

    • Artyom@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 months ago

      There are a ton of legitimate uses for blockchain, but so many scammers loved it that it killed any momentum to use it where it works.

      • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        2 months ago

        Yeah, there’s nothing wrong with blockchain technology, but Surprise! the people most interested in unregulated financial systems are thieves and scammers. Who could have guessed.

          • NaibofTabr@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            2 months ago

            This is a constraint designed into bitcoin to produce artificial scarcity so that the volume of tokens doesn’t massively inflate and destroy their value. A blockchain doesn’t have to operate this way if the goal is to produce unique tokens as identifiers rather than as currency.

    • Serinus@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Any time you see the word “Blockchain” substitute “distributed public database” instead. And then consider if the distributed part contributes in any way.

    • ravhall@discuss.online
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      For example, if you have the movie on apple movies, and you want to sell that movie to a friend, you take their money and initiate the transfer of ownership from writhing apple movies.

      Of course, you’re responsible for the money transaction.