"If you didn't buy something, but rented it - for example a game on Steam or Epic Games store"
I don't know about the other one, but in the Steam store I see "Buy" buttons, not "Rent".
"Buy <game name>" in the store page, then when you go a "Shopping Cart", where you can "Purchase" the game.
To me (and to the average people, I guess) it doesn't sound as a rental service at all.
I'm sure that their ToS says otherwise, but I wonder how it would fare in a court case...
It won't work because the lawyers will just argue that you are "buying" semi perpetual rights to play the game.
You instead need a judge or jury or law that says: "No, fuck you, this is confusing and we don't care what's in your ToS, you will treat this as a product which has had its ownership changed in return for money".
You are (usually) buying a perpetual licence which is revocable, not renting a licence, so the language is correct.
Common usage of the word 'buy' also applies here - the term 'rent' would be confusing to a customer and would usually imply it being time-limited (often days).
If I'm buying Bastion, the language currently on Steam isn't "buy a license to Bastion", it's "buy Bastion". That's misleading if what I'm actually buying is the license.
I believe "buy" means the same thing as in the sentence "I bought a fork". I can use the forks for as long as I want, I can sell it, I can give it away, I don't have to tell anyone how or when I use it, and if someone doesn't want me to use it any more, they can go fork themselves.
I guess you can believe that, but that's a very narrow definition of "buy" and certinaly more narrow than both the dictionary definition and common usage.
Under your definition you can't buy a ticket to a concert, or buy pharmacuticals if a doctor gives you a perscription, but most people would say that you could buy those things.
It's not very different, both are under law, just one is under contract law.
Of course you can own things that you can't sell anyway, you can own an extended warranty on your flatscreen television, or own non-transferrable bonds in a company.
Most things you own you can sell, but it's a mistake to think that ability to sell is a prereqesite to ownership, and a non-transferable licence is one of those things on the list of 'things you can own but cannot sell'.
And on the 'buy' point - Do you think you can buy a haircut, or buy a pedicure?
If we are happy that you can buy services, I assume we are happy with Steam using “buy” to represent the purchase of the service and licensing offering they have?
Buying something and buying a right to use it are two different things.
If somebody told me that they are selling me a house and then I discover that I only got the right to live in it, I would be pissed off.
Now, with software this is usually not a big issue because the mismatch is not huge. When you buy a retail software, you got not the same but at least similar rights that you get when you buy a physical book: you can use it, you can lend it, you can sell it, you cannot make copies. So, when you say "I bought a game", everybody understand what it means, even those that disagree with the term.
Now in case of something like Steam, not only you get a license, but you cannot lend it, you cannot sell it, one day you may not be able to use it anymore because the DRM servers are taken offline (not Steam's fault this), or Steam may decide that you are a "bad guy" and remove access to your whole library.
At this point, the difference between "buying something" and "buying a license to something" becomes more marked, and in my opinion should warrant a different term on the store.
> Buying something and buying a right to use it are two different things. If somebody told me that they are selling me a house and then I discover that I only got the right to live in it, I would be pissed off.
Probably a bad example - lots of property deals are structured as purchasing the 'leasehold' where you only get the right to live in it and do not own the physical property/land.
Most times when people buy an apartment/flat for example, you aren't actually buying an apartment, you are buying a right to rent an apartment.
This is very common in the UK, and does happen in the USA too (e.g. in New York).
This is distinct from buying a freehold property where you are buying the land and structure, rather than just buying a right to rent for a particular term.
It means it is your forever, unless it is taken back, the reasons for which would be described elsewhere in the contract. The language may not be lay language, but neither was the ream of paper it took to buy my house, but people still do that every day.
Digging into this a little deeper, even "irrevocable" isn't as clear-cut as one might expect.
> An “irrevocable” license, on the other hand, cannot be terminated, although there is some divergence in authority regarding whether this means that the license cannot be terminated for any reason or only that the license cannot be terminated for convenience, but still may be terminated for breach.
It's not quite as simple, the main reason for the 'rent' argument is DRM (e.g. most Steam games will stop working if the Steam client can't phone home for a while), but some games on Steam are actually DRM free - it's a very small minority though.
I don't know about the other one, but in the Steam store I see "Buy" buttons, not "Rent". "Buy <game name>" in the store page, then when you go a "Shopping Cart", where you can "Purchase" the game.
To me (and to the average people, I guess) it doesn't sound as a rental service at all.
I'm sure that their ToS says otherwise, but I wonder how it would fare in a court case...