There's a language issue which has not been tackled by regulators and which is actually the mere definition of what happens when I choose to "buy" or "purchase" something.
This is because until recently (by the timescale of "buying things") there were no intangibles to be bought or sold. An intangible is mostly a right to something - in other words, it's paperwork.
But some things are both tangible and intangible, i.e. that copy of the movie you have on your computer.
That's when the regulator should have stepped in to make precise use of words: you are decidedly not "buying" or "purchasing" a movie from Google Movies. You can only be "renting" it, on Google's terms, albeit long term.
Regulators should mandate the use of the word renting as soon as there is no tangible copy that you can use independently of the company that "sold" -- actually, "leased" -- whatever you "bought" from them.
There are multiple cases going through the courts in multiple countries around this.
The one i have in mind is in France (UFC Que Choisir vs Steam iirc) but i know there are others.
From time to time, someone look at these, read the judge opinion, realise how much it would change the web economy out there, write a panicked piece... Then swiftly erase it from their memory because it is a tad too big to think through.
"Calling a cat, a cat", as we say in French: I really do not see what anyone would lose just putting the right words on each action -- and it's not even very difficult to define.
Can the user use the thing mostly without the provider? Yes = purchase, no = rental.
If all of sudden it's all "rentals" everywhere, what does it change -- apart from opening up an avenue for the people willing to actually sell the things they would otherwise lease, because consumers will prefer it that way?
The action taken by the user is still "buying", the confusion comes from legacy when the industry was pretending that you are not buying a song or movie but a cassette or a disk.
See, back in the they when you purchased something physical like a VHS tape, that was useful mental model because it resembled the purchase of bread or tomatoes.
Then people started finding ways to reproduce the contents of these physical objects for re-sell or distribution without a license and the illusion of purchasing physical songs and movies fell apart.
People would argue that piracy is not stealing because the original still remained in its place.
Today we experience the act of purchasing a movie or a song in much purer form. No more charade trying to make it look like as if you are purchasing avocados, you get exactly what you are paying for: the right to enjoy the media in the medium.
People no longer can pretend that they purchased Die Hard 3 and they own the movie and they can do whatever they want with it. The producer(and those who hold the rights) still own the movie, you just pay to enjoy it in the form you paid for and you can't do anything else with it.
You don't even own the right to watch it the way you want, just because you payed for a ticked and watched in the movie theater doesn't give you the right to watch it on iTunes or Netflix. You pay for each medium.
I don't think any average consumer, when they click a "Buy" button next to the movie they want to watch, understands that they are only buying a license to watch the movie. Most believe it's just like buying a Bluray disc, but "on the computer".
And yes, I know people are restricted in what they can do with Bluray discs, but as long as you have a functioning player, you can watch the disc. I think that's all anyone has ever expected out of physical media. DRM'd digital media comes with much more uncertainty, and that should be reflected in the terminology used to "buy a license" for it.
I would guess you're right, and that one could take Google to court over not being able to exercise said right instead of trying to reword buttons. Breach of contract on Google's side. Except the contract probably has small print saying that they're not responsible for software bugs, have no obligation to support your particular device and that any past performance does not bestow entitlement yada yada yada. Sounds like fun and just in time for christmas (referring to OP's story).
Or we agree that such a set of conditions constitutes renting rather than 'owning' as one typically does after 'buying'.
Genuinely not sure which option has more downsides.
Those aren't exclusive -- isn't renting an example of "buying a license"?
But I would be okay if they had to change the misleading "Buy Movie" to a phrase like "Buy a Limited License to Watch Movie". Or "Buy Limited Access to Movie".
Personally, I think those would be overly verbose for how buying movies has worked since they were invented. Consumers are already well aware that buying a movie only grants them a license.
You’re buying a license that can be revoked at the seller’s discretion without refund though. Imagine buying a blu-ray and suddenly you can’t play it anymore because your Google account got banned for whatever reason. I started reading Kafka and it sound like one of his stories.
The use of "buy" for what is more a rental is not really new. For example people have as long as I can remember talked of buying seats at shows and sporting events, even though they are actually only getting the use of that seat for one specific performance or game.
This is because until recently (by the timescale of "buying things") there were no intangibles to be bought or sold. An intangible is mostly a right to something - in other words, it's paperwork.
But some things are both tangible and intangible, i.e. that copy of the movie you have on your computer.
That's when the regulator should have stepped in to make precise use of words: you are decidedly not "buying" or "purchasing" a movie from Google Movies. You can only be "renting" it, on Google's terms, albeit long term.
Regulators should mandate the use of the word renting as soon as there is no tangible copy that you can use independently of the company that "sold" -- actually, "leased" -- whatever you "bought" from them.