Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it. A buyer should discount the value of products that rely on ongoing services accordingly.

See also 'Juicero'.

▲

ryandrake 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If a software requires a server component that is costly to run, then I would expect the software developer to charge a subscription in order to use it, rather than offering it as a one-time charge and then destroying it when they realize letting me continue to use it is costly.

▲

dijit 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Yeah, but gamers in particular are against subscriptions and micro-transactions.

Only one gets away with it: World of Warcraft.

	▲	Rohansi an hour ago \| parent [-]
		You also pay for expansions in WoW which are a one time fee, for each expansion. The latest one includes previous ones so you don't need to pay for all eleven of the, but if you're an active player you would absolutely pay for all of them.

▲

jasonlotito 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Because we don't have a right to a continuing service that requires their labor unless they agreed to it

There are carve-outs in the legislation for this. It's a moot point.

	▲	knollimar a few seconds ago \| parent [-]
		Like what? I read it and don't see workabke carveouts.