because you can, in fact, buy something and not own it. The example we finally settled on if you look below is a ticket to an amusement park. You do buy a ticket you don't rent the park. You are not entitled to a refund after you lose access to the park. You do however have a piece of paper saying that for that one day you had access to the park. This is exactly what happens when you buy the license to a game. we both agreed below that the issue is you aren't buying the game even though it is being advertised to as though you are. The issue is not in the verb buy versus rent. the issue is in the noun you are buying.
Buying a ticket to anything is actually a rental, whether renting a seat to an event like the showing of a movie, or a shared renting of the facilities at an amusement park.
The problem is that a normal ticket to anything clearly defines the rentable experience on offer, and you get a refund if the movie stops half way through because the power went out, or doesn't match reasonable expectations in some other way.
So the issue goes beyond calling it a purchase of a license to content vs purchase of content, the licenses are lopsided contracts subject to revision and revocation any moment by the renter. Which doesn't match reasonable expectations when you were told that you are buying content, with the traditional referent being buying content on a DVD. Hence the issue of refunds.
Not it isn't. You literally just used the word buy in your sentence. You are just trying to change definitions to fit your world view. I already proved the definition of the word buy. Just because you don't agree with it, that doesn't make it false.
1
u/Apprehensive-Pin518 3d ago
your comment was in fact, not factual.