Mini-rant: purchase and license aren't the same thing!

I like to think I'm not an overly avaricious sort... but I do have certain minimal expectations.  Once I've "bought" something, I expect it to be "mine", meaning that I can put it to personal use however I see fit, for as long as I like.  Even when it comes to software, that should be the default... for example, I even have my original 3.5" discs with Advanced Civilization on them (and a USB floppy drive!) on the off chance I decide I want to jump through the hoops necessary to get it to run on a modern machine.  However, when it comes to purely online, digital "purchases", that's not necessarily the case... especially when the store backing whatever licensing restrictions regime goes away, the "buyer" often gets left holding the bag.  In that extreme case, I can at least begrudgingly accept it... well, as far as I can accept the concept of DRM to begin with, I can accept the potential longevity of the provider as part of the purchase decision.  For an example of how this can be done right, one only needs to look at Steam... you buy things from them, you can install those things on whatever machine you're on, including multiple different types of computers, for no additional price.  By that means, among others (such as their routine sales), they work towards the long-term survival of their storefront... I think they even said they'd let people take their purchases with them should Steam ever shut down, but that seems like a remote possibility these days, and I'm not about to waste the time to search the 'net for any such statement so many years later.

Compare and contrast, then, to one of my no-buy-list companies, Sony.  They sold a game, Gran Turismo 5, which they're shutting down the multiplayer servers for in a few months... which is in and of itself unfortunate, but not something worthy of being taken to task over.  However, they also sold DLC for that game... and apparently, something to do with some of it must have some tie to those multiplayer servers, because they're removing the DLC from their storefront (fair enough, if they don't want to sell to anybody else), and announcing that people who bought some of that DLC won't be able to re-download it for themselves thereafter (what what WHAT?!?).  Now, this doesn't affect me directly, since I haven't bought any Sony anything in forever, but I can put my feet in one of their players' shoes... last I knew, all their store checkouts were labeled "purchase", never mind the weasel-words of any click-through license agreement, but, due to their concerns about piracy, rather than allow for a transferable backup of some sort, they compensated by allowing indefinite re-downloads of your purchases.  Apparently, that is, until it's no longer convenient for them to do so, at which point they'll just stop.

So, like I said, it's not directly my problem, since I'm not a Sony customer any longer... so why, you might ask, do I care?  Frankly, because it's not the first time I've seen companies try to get squishy with the term "purchase" when it didn't suit their needs... maybe it's not the best example, but Amazon's issue with 1984 a few years back springs to mind first.  Simply put, if you're running a storefront of any sort, digital or otherwise, and you use the terms "buy", "get", or "purchase" in your checkout process, those imply a transfer of ownership... if you mean "license" or something else short of a purchase, say so.  It'll be less hassle for all involved, for all you might lose some sales... oops, I mean "licensing revenue".