[kurupt213]

Digital sales are license agreements not transfers of ownership

[wongarsu]

There's no technical or legal reason that the word "purchase" doesn't imply an irrevocable, transferable license (for one person at a time), as well as the requirement that the "seller" makes the licensed good indefinitely available to license holders (for a fee appropriate to cost of doing so).

If they don't like that, don't call it a purchase. Anything less is just eroding the meaning of the word.

[kurupt213]

I agree. I’m just telling you what the terms of service say.

[matkoniecz]

In such case calling them purchase should be illegal or result in mandatory refund.

Maybe refund should be indexed by inflation.

[ajsnigrutin]

Then remove the "buy" button and replace it with "lease for some time, until we decide otherwise"

[pfortuny]

You are being downvoted because your sentence is self-contradictory.

One does not “sell” a license agreement, one “enters into it with a third party”. Wether it is digital or not.

[dragonwriter]

> One does not “sell” a license agreement

Factually, yes, one does sell licenses.

> one “enters into it with a third party”.

One also does that. When one offers to do so, in exchange for money, it is also selling the license. You are simply setting up a false dichotomy.

[kurupt213]

I suppose I could have put ‘sales’ in quotes. And it’s not how I think things should be. It’s how they are. Read the terms next time you ‘buy’ a digital product.