"Games as a service" is fraud - An informative and hard-hitting video about software ownership rights and need for advocacy

[Delicieuxz]

Just as how "Windows as a service" is sheer disingenuous propaganda meant to subdue Windows owners into accepting whatever garbage Microsoft pushes on them while Windows is actually by legal definition a product and a good, there are similar questions to be raised about "games as a service". Ross raises those questions in this brilliant video of his.

 

The Accursed Farms video's total length is 1 hour and 15 minutes, so make sure you have some time to watch it, but it's well worth doing so. And the more people who do watch it, the better things will be for gamers and people who like to not have their property stolen from them by corporations.

 

By the way, as this can help understand the video's topic as well as the rest of what I've written in this thread, here are the basic differences between a good and a service: Difference Between Goods and Services

 

The video:

 

 

 

 

One of the sources used in Ross' video is this thread that I made in the LTT General Discussion forum:

 

I already am a big fan of Ross' game review videos, and I've multiple times lamented when checking his YouTube page that I've already watched all of them at least once.

 

And, the topic of software ownership is an important one that permeates ownership and consumer rights issues, and public awareness and societal conceptualization, all far beyond just gaming and software. The conceptualization of the topic redistributes power and confidence in society and I think that if one part of the whole picture becomes corrupted (as the case has been with software in many people's understanding of it for the longest time), then that progressively erodes everything else - because nothing is disparate and static, everything is inter-connected, and the statement of things in one area makes an actionable comment upon all the topics that thing is neighbour to.

 

So, I'm pleased that the information I supplied in that thread has been a help to Ross making his video about this topic. Thanks to @WereCat for letting me know about it.

 

 

I've meant to update that 'software ownership 101' thread for a bit now with additional information clarifying laws which state people own their software - including in the US. Now I wish I had done it sooner. I've just now added some information to that thread, notably this:

Quote

• Updated - I originally wrote: A specific matter of software ownership has never gone to the USA's Supreme Court and it's likely that software publishers would prefer that it doesn't, because in all likeliness the verdict will be the same as it was in the EU and in Australia. Because this matter has never gone to the USA's Supreme Court and because regional court verdicts have conflicted with each other in their conclusions, it is baseless for anyone to claim that people in the USA don't own their purchased software.

 

• Continuing on from the previous point: However... on March 19, 2013, the USA's Supreme Court ruled that people in the USA and elsewhere are entitled to resell their copyrighted goods (which includes purchased software / software licenses) without the copyright-holder's permission, in accordance with the first-sale doctrine which states that a seller retains no decision-making authority over a product once they have sold it to someone else. This super-cedes the 2010 Autodesk vs Vernor ruling and therefore, any claim in an EULA that a license is non-transferable between people is deemed invalid in the USA just as it is in Europe. Also, the first-sale doctrine applies to goods, and therefore this 2013 US Supreme Court ruling implies that software is a good.

 

• Driving home the point that software is sold and owned in the US just like the rest of the Western world is the fact that the US, likewise to Canada and I think the rest of the Western world, is signatory to the Nice Agreement (called such because it was signed in Nice, France) which is a multinational treaty that contains the International Classification of Goods and Services (also known as the Nice Classification) which puts the classification of goods and services for those countries under the jurisdiction and authority of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The World Intellectual Property Organization classifies all forms of software as Class 9 goods, including:

 

090591 - computer software, recorded

090658 - computer programs, downloadable

090670 - computer game software, recorded

090717 - computer software applications, downloadable

090732 - computer hardware

090791 - computer software platforms, recorded or downloadable

090802 - computer screen saver software, recorded or downloadable

090829 - computer game software, downloadable

 

So, people in the US definitively do own their software. This raises some questions about the 9th Circuit Autodesk vs Vernor case:

 

Did WIPO simply not have software added to their goods classification at the time of the appeals case in 2009 and 2010? The oldest WIPO classification document on their website is from 2013, and all forms of software were already classified as Class 9 goods at that time.

 

Or, was the topic of software ownership and digital technology in general at that time simply so foreign to courts and lawyers that they didn't realize this was already established in multinational treaties that the US is signatory to, and so and it just slipped by everyone's awareness?

 

Whatever was the case, if that information had been available and known at the time of the Autodesk vs Vernor appeals case, it's a pretty safe bet that the outcome of that appeals case would not have been in Autodesk's favour.

 

 

 

Here's another related thread:

 

[Delicieuxz]

1.

For added clarification: A subscription-based game service (like many MMOs) for which you also had to purchase the initial software to run the game (such as in the case of WoW), involves two licenses to play online: A perpetual license for the game software that was purchased, and then a separate subscription license to engage the 3rd-party-hosted game servers to use the purchased game software with.

 

In these cases, a person owns the base software they purchased, but they don't own the game servers the software runs on and which they pay for a subscription license to use. So, when the online servers stop being hosted, this can prevent people from playing their game apart from exceptional cases and some which involve extreme workarounds.

 

Ross makes the strong case that this deprives an owner of that software their lawful right to make use of their game property, and so there should be certain rules in place to prevent bad faith business practices and to protect the consumer's rights. And a focus of Ross' video is the aspect of planned-obsolescence of online-dependent games, and how losing server access to play discontinued online games interferes with game software owners' lawful right to make use of their property.

 

If you think these are reaching arguments, then watch the video and hear how they're not. Ross does an exceptional job in looking at all the likely arguments against the consumer interest, and in offering sensible solutions to them based on law and already-in-practice real-world precedence and convention.

 

 

2.

It's already the law everywhere in the Western world and much beyond that people own the software that they purchase. As far as I've aware, there isn't a standing argument to the contrary. Yet, whenever threads or posts are made in Valve's Steam Discussions and Off-Topic forums bringing attention to the Australian High Court's case against Valve, or other software ownership laws, rulings, logic, etc, a certain Steam moderator, going by the title "Spawn of Totoro" deletes it. And if it's someone else's thread that such information is posted in, they often delete the posts specific to showing those things, and then lock the thread with any other comments in it to create a false appearance of consensus in the thread.

 

They've been engaging in this unscrupulous behaviour for a long time, and they even block anyone who tries to discuss it with them on their Steam profile page (despite them being a moderator who should be able to discuss community issues).

 

I've brought this issue up with Steam support on numerous occasions, and they offer no explanation or justification for "Spawn of Totoro's" behaviour, but say they won't do anything about it. I have a sense that this practice of hiding consumer rights and laws from their customers violates consumer rights in some way, and I've told Steam support that I'm going to report this to consumer rights groups (such as those in countries which have taken action and had victories regarding these matters before).

 

Here's "Spawn of Totoro"'s Steam profile: https://steamcommunity.com/id/SpawnOfTotoro

 

There are also some "Spawn of Totoro" sycophants on the Steam forums that try to deny and obscure the fact that people own their software, including Steam-bought software. My experience with them is that they likewise run from discussing the issue when they're messaged on their Steam community profile pages

 

"The Giving One" is one such sycophant who works hard to try to frustrate efforts to talk about the law on software ownership. Here's their Steam profile: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheGivingOne

 

 

3.

Here's one more point I'll add that relates to an argument Ross made in his video about planned-obsolescence of games:

 

Always-online DRM in single-player games is software piracy committed by the publisher and developer. Always-online DRM for single-player games means that at some point in the future when the game servers go down, unless the always-online DRM is removed before then, the single-player game content will become unplayable - not out of necessity, but because the publisher and developer sabotaged its functionality.

 

Always-online DRM in a single-player game is a promise by the software publisher and developer that at some (usually undisclosed) point in the future, they are going to steal you game from you, just like the example Ross gives in his video of a car dealership coming to your house and taking the car they sold you away from you at some random time. 

 

Remember: Always-online DRM in single-player games = software piracy committed by the publisher and developer, against you, or whoever purchased a game with always-online DRM in it. And when publishers and developers resort to piracy against their customers, then they have no moral ground to complain about piracy against their games.

 

 

Here's a list of publishers / developers that have tried always-online DRM in their single-player games: EA, Ubisoft, Epic, SEGA, and now, and just recently with DiRT 2, CodeMasters.

 

Here's how many of those publishers / developers use always-online DRM on their SP games today: ... CodeMasters.

The reason why they stopped using always-online DRM is because they all learned, the hard way, that customers don't respond well to having their owned games ransomed, crippled, and stolen from them by selfish and arrogant developers using always-online DRM, and that always-online DRM results in sales lost, not sales gained.

 

By the way, DiRT 2 has completely bombed in sales compared to all other DiRT games, with one of the key criticisms mentioned in user reviews being its always-online DRM. Since shortly after DiRT 2's release, Valve has been imposing a blackout on counting new Steam user reviews for DiRT 2 because, like with its sales, the game has completely bombed in reviews.

 

Here are some of the games by those other mentioned publishers that tried, and later removed, always-online DRM:

 

https://www.pcgamer.com/assassins-creed-brotherhood-drops-always-online-drm/
https://www.vg247.com/2011/08/23/from-dust-pc-drm-to-be-removed-by-patch/
https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2012/09/05/ubisoft-scrapping-always-on-drm-for-pc-games/
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/13/simcity_offline_turnaround/
https://dontfeedthegamers.com/sonic-mania-drm-always-online-removed/

 

Now, hopefully, you understand why developers don't use always-online DRM.

And for any gamer who thinks always-online DRM isn't a big threat, take note of the rare case where a developer didn't remove always-online DRM from their game: https://www.cinemablend.com/games/Darkspore-Removed-From-Steam-DRM-Errors-Prevent-People-From-Playing-57157.html

Always-online DRM for SP games is an underhanded attempt at forced-obsolescence. People rightly shouldn't support or reward it.

 

 

4,

12 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Jim Sterling has given a shout-out to Ross' video, imploring people to watch it:

 

 

The shout-out at the very start of this video.

[schwellmo92]

tl;dr?

[ARikozuM]

13 minutes ago, schwellmo92 said:

tl;dr?

1) You own the software you purchase, can resell it, and should fight for your rights based on case law. 

 

2) People love to side with corporations based on some allegiance; however the brand has no loyalty to the users and should be treated likewise.

 

3) Don't buy multiplayer (3rd-party server) games since you won't have a license to use the servers even though you own the instance for the game itself. 

[Delicieuxz]

1 hour ago, schwellmo92 said:

tl;dr?

Hmm. That's a tough challenge here, since there's so much historical misuse of terms by corporations and gamers and misrepresentation of what the law is. The video starts with Ross saying that he can't easily sum the video up in one sentence, and that the video is going to be long by necessity because he's having to confront and correct years of (likely deliberate) disinformation.

 

Ross doesn't really waste words, he's making quality points all along the video, which is organized into sections talking about different aspects of the topic.

 

Basically:

 

- It's the law across the West and much elsewhere that you own your game and other software.

 

- "Games as a service", just like "Windows as a service", is ultimately a meaningless propaganda term, not supported by law, that is meant to put consumers under the boot of corporations, and the practice involves fraud-like manoeuvers that may be genuine criminal fraud.

 

- There are a variety of laws and court rulings backing consumers against "games as a service" practices.

 

- It is important for games to notice anti-consumer propaganda when it's made about software ownership and call it out, because that propaganda is being deliberately steered to take rights away from consumers.

 

- Seeing as the gaming community is only just beginning to wake up to this topic and its implications for them, there is a lot that can be done to fight back against anti-consumer corporate propaganda on the issue. Ross touches upon some of those things towards the end of his video.

 

 

A short summary like that isn't doing justice to the full video. It's a very good, edifying watch.

[justpoet]

So, this is mostly true with purchasing a physical package.  It has also tied over to purchasing software that you can download and run.  It has NOT tied over to website or other subscription only systems, as you're paying to use the service, not paying to buy the software.

 

However, there is nothing that can force your end user license in the opposite direction at this time when you own something physical, to require that servers be kept up forever, or to be made available for somebody else to host once they're no longer commercially viable.  In days past, some companies opened up the server side once they were going away, but that is different software that one is not entitled to, as you did not purchase it, you are only allowed to use it.

 

This fits perfectly fine for games that have a solo or network mode, and then also a world mode to play with others.  It gets a bit grey when the only way to use what you bought is to also use what you didn't buy.  Currently, the law is on the side of the companies there, however the law is also on the side of people who decide to reverse engineer what they have to be able to use it.

 

[justpoet]

FYI- Same thing with Adobe Creative Suite as an example.

 

In days gone by, you could buy it.  Today, you can't (though you're still entitled to use your old copy you bought).  Today, you buy a pass to run their Creative Cloud service for a month, rather than buying the software.

[Delicieuxz]

18 minutes ago, justpoet said:

However, there is nothing that can force your end user license in the opposite direction at this time when you own something physical, to require that servers be kept up forever, or to be made available for somebody else to host once they're no longer commercially viable.  In days past, some companies opened up the server side once they were going away, but that is different software that one is not entitled to, as you did not purchase it, you are only allowed to use it.

Ross' video spends a lot of time talking about this point.

 

By taking away the online game servers for a purchased software product (such as I did for WoW, though it also needs a subscription license to use the purchased software), companies are stopping people from using the software that they purchased. The purchasers of the software to be used with an online subscription license didn't purchase the online servers, so, technically people have no entitlement to them. However, they do have a legal entitlement to use their software that they purchased, which is dependent upon online servers.

 

So, how can the software purchasers continue to have access to their right to use their software after the online servers are gone, without putting a burden on the publisher who has ended their support for the games? Ross goes into detail with possibilities, such as companies being required to release the necessary back-end software to run servers - only after their own hosting of servers has ended.

 

But, would requiring companies to do that infringe on companies' rights? Well, no, not really, and there's precedence and examples from other industries. Ross goes into detail about all of those things, too.

 

That's a very simplified version of what's talked about in the video. His research has clearly been very meticulous.

[D13H4RD]

2 hours ago, ARikozuM said:

2) People love to side with corporations based on some allegiance; however the brand has no loyalty to the users and should be treated likewise.

This always gets me. 

 

And I've never quite understood why

[Eaglerino]

I don't really mind the idea of paying $100 once for Windows and getting updates for eternity

 

But I do not like games as a service. It usually means developers release unfinished games, fix them over the course of a year, then release trickles of content for the next 5 years. At the end of the 5 years you have a decently filled out game. With a game like Destiny it wasn't so bad, they were almost the first aside from MMOs, it was fine to put up with it. But if we're expected to put up with 5 year waits for every single game that comes out anymore... we're going to be stuck with Destiny forever

 

also if you buy an online only game, you're renting access to the software until the servers go down. this isn't new and isn't all that annoyance-worthy to me. i've spent more money on far more temporary things in my life

[mr moose]

How long should a company be expected to support something at their own cost after sales?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  It doesn't matter how you try to resolve the expense of it, running servers for games and updating OS's costs money and it can't be done for free.  Someone has to pay or it won't happen.

[Dabombinable]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How long should a company be expected to support something at their own cost after sales?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  It doesn't matter how you try to resolve the expense of it, running servers for games and updating OS's costs money and it can't be done for free.  Someone has to pay or it won't happen.

It's simply a matter of publishers allowing people to host their own servers. Older games that did that still have active communities.

[Delicieuxz]

35 minutes ago, mr moose said:

How long should a company be expected to support something at their own cost after sales?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  It doesn't matter how you try to resolve the expense of it, running servers for games and updating OS's costs money and it can't be done for free.  Someone has to pay or it won't happen.

In his video, Ross doesn't claim that companies should have to support an online game service for any particular amount of time, and affirms they should be able to stop supporting them at any time. What he argues is that they should be required to do so in a responsible manner that doesn't infringe on consumer rights.

 

Towards the end of his video, he fields a bunch of common and anticipated arguments against what he's advocating for. Two of the arguments and answers he gives that relate directly to what you've brought up are these:

 

50:27, and also the next one at 52:07:

 

 

48:12 is for the start of his responses to common and anticipated arguments against his case:

 

 

He talks some about the importance of preserving games at 39:31.

[mr moose]

2 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

It's simply a matter of publishers allowing people to host their own servers. Older games that did that still have active communities.

Which is all good and well for old games, but for new games letting anyone control the servers on your game is leaving the quality of the product in the hands of anyone.  No one wants to play a game that is riddled with bots and gold spammers.  And this is also forgetting the OS side of things where constant updates and security patches have to be administered.

[Dabombinable]

1 minute ago, mr moose said:

Which is all good and well for old games, but for new games letting anyone control the servers on your game is leaving the quality of the product in the hands of anyone.  No one wants to play a game that is riddled with bots and gold spammers.  And this is also forgetting the OS side of things where constant updates and security patches have to be administered.

You do realise that even games with servers only hosted by their publisher have those problems already?

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

In his video, Ross doesn't claim that companies should have to support an online game service for any particular amount of time, and affirms they should be able to stop supporting them at any time. What he argues is that they should be required to do so in a responsible manner that doesn't infringe on consumer rights.

 

Towards the end of his video, he fields a bunch of common and anticipated arguments against what he's advocating for. Two of the arguments and answers he gives that relate directly to what you've brought up are these:

 

50:27

 

52:07:

 

 

 

48:12 is for the start of his responses to common and anticipated arguments against his case:

 

 

One more timestamp (39:31), about 40 minutes in - On the importance of preserving games:

 

Neither of those first two addressed what I said.  And I don't have time to sit through the whole video or parts of it to find out if he agree or not.

 

While a company is providing a service they are entitled to charge for it.  end of story.

 

 

[mr moose]

Just now, Dabombinable said:

You do realise that even games with servers only hosted by their publisher have those problems already?

Yes, some do, Personally I don't play them and no one is forced to pay for a service that is like that, But some companies actually work hard to make their games not like that at all. ESO was really good at getting on top of the bots and gold spammers very early in the game.   However if a company just hands over the control of the servers straight out of the gate then they have Zero control over it.   I am not in favor of fighting to force a specific changes just because a few companies are bad at their job.

[Delicieuxz]

15 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Which is all good and well for old games, but for new games letting anyone control the servers on your game is leaving the quality of the product in the hands of anyone.  No one wants to play a game that is riddled with bots and gold spammers.  And this is also forgetting the OS side of things where constant updates and security patches have to be administered.

In his video, Ross mentions that the requirements for responsible EoL handling of online-based software should apply at the end of their support, not before then.

 

12 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Neither of those first two addressed what I said.  And I don't have time to sit through the whole video or parts of it to find out if he agree or not.

 

While a company is providing a service they are entitled to charge for it.  end of story.

You asked: "How long should a company be expected to support something at their own cost after sales?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  It doesn't matter how you try to resolve the expense of it, running servers for games and updating OS's costs money and it can't be done for free.  Someone has to pay or it won't happen."

 

And those sections of the video pretty directly address how long companies should have to support their game, what should be involved in EoL support, and cost concerns.

 

This part also talks about how much effort would be required for responsible EoL handling:

 

His information is that the kind of responsible EoL handling that he's advocating for would require between less than an hour to a few days of work.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

In his video, Ross mentions that the requirements for responsible EoL handling of online-based software should apply at the end of their support, not before then.

 

You asked: "How long should a company be expected to support something at their own cost after sales?  5 years, 10 years, 20 years?  It doesn't matter how you try to resolve the expense of it, running servers for games and updating OS's costs money and it can't be done for free.  Someone has to pay or it won't happen."

 

And those sections of the video pretty directly address how long companies should have to support their game, what should be involved in EoL support, and cost concerns.

 

This part also talks about how much effort would be required for responsible EoL handling:

 

His information is that the kind of responsible EoL handling that he's advocating for would require between a few hours to a few days of work.

So are you saying he agree's with my post?  Because All I said was if a company is providing a service then they should be entitled to charge for it. 

 

Once a product is EoL then the company is no longer providing a service.   I don't understand why it is "fraud" to charge for an essential (and advertised product requirement) service, especially given your opening sentence directly claims windows as a service is disingenuous, even though MS are providing a service to windows users, how is that fraud?  in fact what the F does windows have to do with EoL games?

 

It sounds to me that much like your last post (that you claim was used as reference for this video),  this one is conflating several issues then trying to use the general definition of a product under consumer law as evidence.  

 

 

[Delicieuxz]

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

So are you saying he agree's with my post?  Because All I said was if a company is providing a service then they should be entitled to charge for it. 

I was saying that the question and point you raised are addressed in the video.

 

14 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Once a product is EoL then the company is no longer providing a service.   I don't understand why it is "fraud" to charge for an essential (and advertised product requirement) service

That's because you haven't watched the video to understand what he is referring to. He covers that.

 

Quote

especially given your opening sentence directly claims windows as a service is disingenuous, even though MS are providing a service to windows users, how is that fraud?  in fact what the F does windows have to do with EoL games?

The comparison is that they both use the "as a service" slogan disingenuously, since Windows and the examples in the video for which the term "fraud" is used are not services, but legally goods.

 

He says something about publishers doing "games as a service" with certain games to the effect of 'they're trying to present goods as services while escaping the responsibilities of both'.

 

Quote

It sounds to me that much like your last post (that you claim was used as reference for this video),  this one is conflating several issues then trying to use the general definition of a product under consumer law as evidence.  

Using laws and court rulings stating that software is a good as evidence that software is a good? I think that's a straight-forward case.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

That's because you haven't watched the video to understand what he is referring to. He covers that.

Answer my question. Does he disagree with my statement?

 

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

The comparison is that they both use the "as a service" slogan disingenuously, since Windows and the examples in the video for which the term "fraud" is used are not services, but legally goods.

Neither of them use "as a service" disingenuously,  if you think that  then you don't understand the definition of a service in relation to he product. And neither does he if he is claiming that.

1 minute ago, Delicieuxz said:

Using laws and court rulings stating that software is a good as evidence that software is a good? I think that's a straight-forward case.

You do know the difference between a service and a product or good right?  Each has a definition for the purpose of enforcing consumer law, you cannot take the definition of a good for consumer law and apply it to a legitimate service and expect it to hold true.  A game or software suite is a product for the purposes of consumer law, in others words for the purposes of enforcing the consumers right to what they paid for.  If they bought a product that requires a paid subscription or a product that is designed to only work for a set period then they got what they paid for.  The service that that software requires is a different product, it is not a good under the same law.

 

The disingenuous bit here is your representation of consumer law.

[Mihle]

Does this mean that stuff like steam or the others should have had ways to sell games used, or at least a way to give them away/sell them on third party sites? 

(Like getting the key and "unlinking" it from your account so it can be used by someone else)

 

I want that. Then I could clean up all the games in my Steam inventory that I won't ever play again.

[mr moose]

5 minutes ago, Mihle said:

Does this mean that stuff like steam or the others should have had ways to sell games used, or at least a way to give them away/sell them on third party sites? 

(Like getting the key and "unlinking" it from your account so it can be used by someone else)

 

I want that. Then I could clean up all the games in my Steam inventory that I won't ever play ever.

They don't have to provide a specific shop for the sale, but in many countries they can't stop you from selling some of them. They are considered goods for consumer law purposes which means if the owner relinquishes all rights and access to said good then they can be given/sol to another person. But it likely will require a court case before a definitive conclusion is drawn.

[Delicieuxz]

22 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Answer my question. Does he disagree with my statement?

Why? That isn't what any of this is about. I also already answered it with an edit to the previous comment. You don't get any points for that, or for your attempt to reframe the discussion after catching yourself on your own rhetoric.

 

Quote

Neither of them use "as a service" disingenuously,  if you think that  then you don't understand the definition of a service in relation to he product. And neither does he if he is claiming that.

Actually, they both do, because neither of the "service"-labelled items are legally services, but are products. That a product can engage services doesn't turn it into a service.

 

Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about.

 

Quote

You do know the difference between a service and a product or good right?  Each has a definition for the purpose of enforcing consumer law, you cannot take the definition of a good for consumer law and apply it to a legitimate service and expect it to hold true.

Glad you recognize the basis of criticism in my writings and in the OP video. So, why do you argue against what you, yourself, admit to be the case?

 

I put this in the OP to help people, but it clearly cannot help anyone who doesn't even bother to read the OP before ranting about what they imagine the thread to be about:

 

"By the way, as this can help understand the video's topic as well as the rest of what I've written in this thread, here are the basic differences between a good and a service: Difference Between Goods and Services"

 

Quote

A game or software suite is a product for the purposes of consumer law, in others words for the purposes of enforcing the consumers right to what they paid for.

Nice make-believe logic.

 

But, actually, no. Software is legally a product because according to multinational treaty it's a product in all of these countries:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classification_of_Goods_and_Services

 

Because of this: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/20190101/hierarchy/class-9/

 

See why it's a good idea to read about something before ranting against it?

 

Quote

If they bought a product that requires a paid subscription or a product that is designed to only work for a set period then they got what they paid for.  The service that that software requires is a different product, it is not a good under the same law.

Wow. It's almost as if you've read some of what I've written on the topic, and understood it. That begs the question: Why are you simultaneously arguing for and against your own position (while being obviously oblivious to it)?

 

And this is why it's never a good idea to start ranting about a thread that you haven't bothered to read the topic of.

 

Quote

The disingenuous bit here is your representation of consumer law.

No, that would be any suggestion that you possess decent reading comprehension or considering skills, and that you have even a semi-appreciable level of awareness for what you're saying and what topic you're trying but failing to engage. You're a bigger joke tonight than usual. 

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, Delicieuxz said:

Why? That isn't what any of this is about. I also already answered it with an edit to the previous comment. You don't get any points for that, or for your attempt to reframe the discussion after catching yourself on your own rhetoric.

Why bother responding to my posts if you are not going to respond to my posts.

Quote

Actually, they both do, because neither of the "service"-labelled items are legally services, but are products. That a product can engage services doesn't turn it into a service.

 

Unfortunately, you don't know what you're talking about.

Righto, believe what you want.

 

Quote

Glad you recognize the basis of criticism in my writings and in the OP video. So, why do you argue against what you, yourself, admit to be the case?

 

Nice make-believe logic.

 

But, actually, no. Software is legally a product because according to multinational treaty it's a product in all of these countries:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_(Nice)_Classification_of_Goods_and_Services

 

Because of this: https://www.wipo.int/classifications/nice/nclpub/en/fr/20190101/hierarchy/class-9/

 

See why it's a good idea to read about something before ranting against it?

 

Wow. It's almost as if you've read some of what I've written on the topic, and understood it. That begs the question: Why are you simultaneously arguing for and against your own position (while being obviously oblivious to it)?

 

And this is why it's never a good idea to start ranting about a thread that you haven't bothered to read the topic of.

 

No, that would be any suggestion that you possess decent reading comprehension or considering skills, and that you have even a semi-appreciable level of awareness for what you're saying and what topic you're trying but failing to engage. You're a bigger joke tonight than usual. 

 

Sure sign you don't understand, instead of actually providing something to back up your claims you just derail into a long list of insults and accusations of ignorance.  The best way to show everyone you don't know what you are arguing is to just start insulting instead.

 

Consumer law is not the simple thing you think it is.