- cross-posted to:
- games@lemmy.world
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- games@lemmy.world
- nottheonion@lemmy.world
- news@lemmy.world
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51388116
With the end of physical PlayStation games looming, the need for clear digital ownership rights is more pressing than ever.
For its part, Sony believes your rights are very clear: you do not own your digital games, and it’s unlikely you’re stupid enough to believe otherwise. At least, that’s roughly the argument the company’s lawyers are presenting in response to a proposed class-action lawsuit.
Sony argues that its current customer-facing disclosures ensure that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into believing they actually own their digital games. That’s according to a Game File report (paid article link) citing an August 21 filing Sony’s lawyers made in California’s Northern District.
You must log in or register to comment.
If this logic were true, then pirating a game couldn’t be theft because the original owner still has possession of it.
I hope that backfires in their face.
Piracy has never been tried successfully as theft, because it does not deprive the original owner of their lawful copy. It has always been tried as Copyright Infringement.
Its not theft because nothing is being stolen, only a copy being made. Their take on this is all the more reason to pirate. I’ll be damned if Im paying $80-$100 to “rent” a game so they can take it from me when they lose the license. Which they’ve been doing alot of recently.
Modern Piracy is never theft.
Why do they use terms like “Buy”, and “Purchase”, then?
The same reason your fruit punch is “made with 100% real fruit juice”
Just a little gamer jargon. Everyone knows what’s up
If not owned, why ownership priced?
“Add to cart” “Purchase”
No, you didn’t purchase it.
If not owned, shouldda said “rent”.
And come with a fixed rental period/duration listed upfront. And pricing to match
So by that logic, Sony also don’t own the games and therefore have nothing to sell.
There’s a reason everyone says they’re going to purchase a copy of a game. No one ever thinks they are buying the master and suddenly owns the IP. Everyone at Sony has rocks for brains.
Sleazy lawyers expect the judge to have rocks for brains and buy this argument. They’re relying on the ignorance of digital goods and how they work. I hope they didn’t forget that neat word from the last corpo scam before AI, non-fungible. Every copy is indistinguishable from all the other copies. If you can sell infinite copies at no cost, then people should be able to buy a copy and keep it in a working state forever. Fuck DRM.
You but a “copy of the game”, not the entire IP. You own that individual copy.
Do they think a physical book is a license, too?
In other words, Sony’s lawyers are arguing that if you truly own your digital games, only one copy of GTA 6 could ever be sold. “Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr. Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then,” the filing says.
OK, so by that logic if only one copy exists and that copy is rented to Jason Mendoza, then Sony shouldn’t be able to rent it to Edward Heycock because the one copy is already in use by Mendoza.
It really should work that way then, instead of letting them have their cake and eat it too. They and others have fought hard to make that logic work to their own ends. When publishers can enforce artificial scarcity of digital goods upon public libraries, like limiting the number of active e-book loans at any time, those same publishers should find themselves bleeding on the other edge of that sword. But since corporations are “persons,” the large ones belonging to that class of untouchables, it’s “rules for thee, but not for me” as always.
There’s no way anybody is stupid enough to believe I’m going to purchase anything Sony now.
I don’t believe anyone owns media. I believe “buying media” should provide, baring illegal action on the buyers part, an irrevocable license to the media. Additionally, if the media is only available online, the media needs to be provided for the expected lifetime of the buyer.
🎶It’s fun to violate the D M C A🎶
🎶It’s fun to violate the D M C A🎶
🎶They want everyone, to not own their own stuff🎶
🎶You can just pirate it in that case🎶
🎶It’s fun to violate the D M C A🎶
🎶It’s fun to violate the D M C A🎶
🎶You get games to play, and movies to view🎶
🎶You can do what ever you feel🎶Please tell me this is an actual song somebody made
Not the same lyrics, but in the same vein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnF1BBBtXs
I mean, I bought the only peanut butter ever made. There was only one, I bought it.
If I were a judge, and someone presented a case so fucking stupid, I would dismiss the case with prejudice.
Lawyers have to at least pretend to do their jobs.
That lawyer is an idiot. He’s arguing that Sony willfully double dipped n times after the first sale of each and every digital title.
deleted by creator
“we only manufactured one! When you bought it, we no longer owned it!”
I always remember what Sony did to SWG. The PlayStation interface has always been blazing hot garbage too. I have never had the impression they care much about consumers.
