969
Why is Google allowed to remove purchases from our Play Store accounts without telling us?
(www.androidpolice.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Jan 2024
969 points (98.5% liked)
Technology
60078 readers
3214 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They’re not purchases, they’re leases.
Edit: it’s actually that you purchase access to their license of the media.
You're correct, of course, but I think if a company uses the term "purchase" or "buy" up front and center, that it should be considered one.
FWIW, before posting this, I looked around on the Google Play Store and they are suspiciously hesitant to actually use those words. Their top charts are "paid," going to a "Paid" app just shows the price, etc. But despite showing a link to their terms of service, they never state that it is a lease.
Edit: Sorry, meant to reply to the comment above you!
They're not really leases either. Leases last for a defined period of time, like "one year," or they renew at regular intervals, like "monthly." "Pay up front and we'll let you keep this license for either forever or until we decide to revoke it without notifying you" isn't the same thing.
Apple uses the word “Get” for free things and simply displays the price on the button of paid apps. No mention of the nature of the transaction. That’s in the Germa of agreement you “read” and agreed to.
Same thing that Sony did with movies on the PS. “You’re buying a revocable licence”
Pretty much all the big tech firms have done this. The problem is we only blame the middlemen. We blame Sony or Amazon, or Google or whoever. But the companies providing the licenses for them to "sell" are a big part of the problem. And nobody ever wants to listen when I say this but they should be on the hook too. Like, I appreciate that it's messed up to have your purchased media shadow ganked. But at the same time it's fucked up to have the licensing agreements be what they are to start with and that's absolutely on companies that own the rights to digital media. Who continue to lobby to maintain the status quo.
All they will do is call it purshaces or some other made up bs
And this is why you don't see apps selling for a price but rather being used to syphon users into subscriptions.
Well, they’re “purchases” of a license that can be revoked at any time for any reason.
Are they really? Didn't you press a button that said "Buy"? Just because they want things to be something else, doesn't mean that the meaning of the words changed.
They can argue that you “bought” the lease.
No they fucking can't argue that! Words have meanings and Google is not entitled to change them.
It's pretty clear that you're leasing a car when you do it. Make it like that.
Exactly. It should say "lease" instead of "buy" or just "price" .
They know that too but you know why they don't use "lease"? They would have WAY less sales. Almost no one would click that.
So they use "buy"/"price" to make you think you own it, and then think they are clever when they define it as "buying a licence" in the Terms.
That's plain and sneaky so I don't feel sorry for them when people pirate stuff.
I wish every dev had the option of "go to my website and buy this from me with an eternal licence included" as well as the option to lease it from the Play Store.
Same goes for music and movies.
If it’s in the term and you sign it, then, for better or for worse, then that is true.
There are usually loads of unenforceable terms and definitions in the ToS you sign. Just because you sign it doesn't make it true or enforceable, and many won't hold up in court even if you've signed the document. But that requires you to spend the energy and money to fight these fuckers.
If a car dealership put a sticker on the front window of a car saying "Buy this car for $250 a month for 4 years" and then took the car from you after 4 years because their terms had some fine print, the dealership would likely be sued.
If they weren't sued they'd at least lose business. Unfortunately for everyone, that's not going to happen with Amazon or Sony or any other big company doing this shit because we're just letting them get away with shady business practices.
I'm not saying the terms are wrong or that what the companies are doing is illegal right now, but I do think it should be looked at closely by someone who can dish out some massive fines, or ideally change the situation.
Maybe that's true in a legal sense, depending on the jurisdiction, but in a moral sense, it's only true if you read and understood what you were agreeing to. You can't consent to something you were tricked into.
It’s in the terms you agreed to. Didn’t you read them?
I wish the terms and conditions had reading times at the top of them, and I also wish there was a law saying something to the effect of "buying a movie shouldn't require you to read 35 minutes of ALL CAPS TERMS AND CONDITIONS while holding a dictionary and a thesaurus after gaining a legal degree"
Agreed there should be a max word count for this kind of things.
On some storefronts the relevant button is labelled "Get"
I've just had a look on the Play Store, and they notably don't use the word "buy" anywhere that I can see. The button to "buy" the app is just a button with the price on it, and clicking through that it uses the language of "install".
Can't help but think that that's deliberate.
It does say "Buy" and refers to a "purchase", but everyone's arguing semantics; the Terms of Service say that you are buying a limited license to download and use the software. You may have a "one-click purchase"-type option enabled?
It's also a private company and they can do whatever they want on their platform and their property.
It's like renting space in an apartment .... don't be surprised if the landlord decides to change the agreements and do things you don't like. You're renting things, you don't own anything.
You can't arbitrarily change agreements for renting without consent or lease renewal. At least not in civilized countries.
You can do whatever the hell you want when you pay Congress.
Their property, their rules🤷🏿
That’s life.
By that logic citizens can say "our country, our rules".
According to the Constitution, yes it is. The people are told to rise up if they believe we’re rules by an unjust government.
It’s just… who wants to go first?
Can they murder people on their property? Or is there some limit to their ability to make rules?
Try that in Spain.
The place that rhymes with pain?
Maybe in the US, you'd get fucked as a property owner where I live if you tried that.
why would you defend this
I'm not defending or condoning it ... I was just pointing out something for what it is. I keep my purchases, rentals and anything paid for to a minimum with services like Google, Amazon or any other cloud or electronic service. They are not purchases of ownership, they are marketed as things that we buy and own indefinitely but in legal terms, they are more or less indeterminate rentals or leases from the company with terms that can be set by the company that controls them.
I agree, in terms of comparing to an apartment rental, there are more laws because the thing that is involved severely affects a person's life because we're talking about a roof over a person's head.
But in terms of electronic or digital items or services that only exist online, it's a lot easier to remove / change / delete them because these actions won't put you out on the street, make you starve or physically hurt you in any way. We lose the convenience and we lose out on something.
I'm not belittling any of it, I wouldn't want to lose anything I paid for either but at the same time, we have to understand that when we sign up to pay for something with a multi billion dollar corporation, we hardly have any rights to anything, agreed to or implied ... and if we argue that in court, the one with the most money wins.
Your argument is cargo-cult libertarian bullshit. There are lots of things private entities can't do on "their property!" Murdering visitors, for example. Fraudulently claiming a sale isn't really a sale is right up there with that in terms of how clear-cut the rule is.
What we have here is squarely a failure of the FTC to do its goddamn job. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think everyone took there comment in the wrong light. They're not defending Google, but rather pointing out that this behavior should be expected from a for profit company, and thus people should have avoided the situation in the first place. Not that it should be that way, but we live under capitalism unfortunately, and people need to be way more skeptical of these companies.
Rather than blaming inaction of the FTC, why not just stop using play store all together and encourage people to use Fdroid instead? Companies will never stop abusing 'e-goods' , it's just not going to happen. People should just get beyond ownership and embrace the advantages of free software.
Because boycotts don't fucking work and are not a replacement for meaningful consumer protection law!
I do use F-Droid myself, thankyouverymuch, but I'm not so naive as to think it's an actual solution instead of a workaround. Even if it's technically possible to continuously defend yourself from the avalanche of corporate abuse, it's fucking exhausting. The masses not only aren't capable of it, but shouldn't have to be in the first place because abuse should be prevented, not worked around. That's what government is for!
This shit about boycotting abusive companies instead of actually regulating them is just as brain-dead as arguing that we shouldn't have police because we can just hire a personal security detail to follow us around instead.
Not with that attitude. Companies could certainly be forced by the government to stop doing that, but apologists like you are letting government off the hook.
Well I personally think the FTC should do more, but until money out of politics, it will never happen. And pending some mass upheaval; that is probably in all reality unlikely as long as people are fed, money will almost certainly never be out of politics.
So all the more necessity to encourage people to just abandon these profiteering companies.
Does that single landlord control every apartment in the country? That is Google's level of monopoly.