657
Sony Reminds PS Users They Don't Own Digital Games (games.gg)
submitted 3 days ago* by to c/technology@lemmy.world
150 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The relevant section is blunt. "The Software is licensed to you, not sold," the EULA states. "You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for."

The terms also restrict renting, modifying, or obtaining games through unauthorised means. Nothing in there is new, technically. Sony's EULA has always said this. The timing is what makes it land differently right now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (5 children)

It's in the EULA for every piece of software, including physical.

If it wasn't, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.

Because that's what actually owning software means.

And video games are software.

PlayStation:

The Software is licensed to you, not sold

Windows 95:

The software product is licensed, not sold

https://www.scribd.com/document/478767349/Windows-95-License-Agreement

I know it's a joke no one ever read them...

But you all really never knew this?

Edit:

Don't make me wheel out the 1980s CRT TV for the class...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up863eQKGUI

There's always been freeware and shareware (yes, they're different) but if you as an individual paid money for software at any point, you've never owned it.

Businesses can't even justify the expense of "owning" basic stuff like Microsoft Office and collectively spend billions. "Owning" software is fucking expensive, and usually means you coded it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 35 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    It’s in the EULA for every piece of software,** including physical.**

    Bolded for those that aren't getting it.

    Even if you buy a disc, that does not guarantee you can play the game in the future. Often games have to be authenticated on install, and if that authenticating server is no longer online, you can't play the game--even if you have all the files required to play it.

    Europe had a whole "Stop Killing Games" initiative that would require companies to unlock games they are no longer supporting, but that mysteriously vanished from the legislative docket after meetings with game companies that organizers weren't invited to.

    Stay mad, but you need to be mad at the right things.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (4 children)

    Kind of funny how Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem and they'll be here after it's all done. You put that cartridge into your console, and you can play it. It may be version 1.0, but you can play it. And every single physical Switch game that requires a download, must state so on the front of the box, so you can avoid buying them. It'll cost $70 a decade from now, but it'll run after you pay it lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Nintendo was here before any of this was a problem

    Because NES locked it down at propertiary carts and still do...

    That drastically increases the cost of Ninetendo games, because Nintendo is the only one legally allowed to make the blank. Even gamecube used tiny discs.

    If you wanted to sell a NES game, you had to buy X amount of blank copies from Nintendo, then pay Nintendo to put the code on the blank, then pay Nintendo a licensing cut to sell...

    Like, it's not like Nintendo had consumers best interest at heart, they just nickle and dime developers at every step, which is why Nintendo versions costs more.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 3 days ago (2 children)
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 3 days ago* (1 child)

    I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.

    The difference is more that they'll be useless in 25 years or whenever Nintendo pulls the plug on the download servers.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    I will say at least with those you can still sell them, trade them, whatever. Unlike digital games.

    Being able to sell/trade a specific copy of digital media kind of is the one functional use NFTs could be used for (if companies would be willing to treat digital media to be treated like physical media which they obviously like the current setup). Would also kind of need a universal industry blockchain (or some other ledger system) with better scam protections, and be used for the "new" sales for the trades and "used" sales. Which is way more effort than digital media companies would ever care to figure out (especially now) and were able to get away with not being required to treat digital like physical. And the major players don't have to care about making their stuff DRM-free.

    In the case of video media it is worse since there are so many set-top devices that don't allow offline downloads like the mobile versions of the same apps (mostly since the boxes don't have storage for it) or ability to use on a home media server (Plex/Jellyfin). So you may have a license to a movie/show but not have access to it if networks are down. And digital audio media has been reverting since a lot of new music can't be purchased and only streamed. Which is sad since I had some early hope that the digital video stuff would follow how audio was working with a lot of DRM-free options Apple and Amazon managed to "legitimize". I will give some level of credit to the UV/Movies Anywhere system that allows retaining a supported movie/show if you have accounts on multiple services and any one of them shuts down. But that still requires that stores/studios support it, AND that the core system isn't the thing shutdown.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 days ago (1 child)

    If it wasn't, then buying a single copy would legally allow you to sell an infinite amount of copies.

    Because that's what actually owning software means.

    This. Is. A. FUCKING. Lie.

    If I buy and own a physical copy of a book. I am not then entitled to set up a printing press and sell my own word-for-word copies of said book. Same applies to ownership of digital goods.

    If I go to GOG and buy a DRM free game (aka I would then own that copy) I still wouldn't have the legal right to distribute copies to other people.

    That's because copyright laws exist, and they apply to both situations I described. Shame on you for mindlessly repeating industry lies.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 days ago* (1 child)

    Never ever owned software. Even physical disks has something like buying this gives you a license to use this software. Great examples is movies. It gave you a license for private viewing only. Showing a movie you had a copy if to a group of people technically broke that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    I think a lot of the issue is when companies no longer respect their customers and abuse the fact that software is licensed to rip that license away from customers. Valve has the exact same agreement but (most) people don't have an issue with it because they're much better at ensuring you have access to the games you've bought for as long as possible.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago*

    abuse the fact that software is licensed to rip that license away from customers

    A lot of it is widely outside of PlayStation or Valves hands...

    The puclishers have the same deal with them, and developers have the same deal with the publishers.

    If that wasn't there at every link of the chain, then that next person no longer has to pay anyone earlier in the chain.

    We kind of see the same with in-game music. That has to be licensed from the owner of the master, and possibly a couple more people. They don't like doing licences in perpetuity out of principle. If the Beatles let a game use a song and that game eventually sells for 10¢ or free, then that's a loss sale even 30 years from now in the way licensing works. So after 5-10 years, songs disappear.

    Or like how it took Kevin Smith forever to get actual ownership of the movie Dogma due to Weinstein being involved and everyone else just wanting to bury what he'd touched.

    EULA's and ownership is a lot deeper than software. Like, you can sell a used game of monopoly, but buying a copy doesn't mean you can make you're own and sell, the physical material is just associated with the license for the intellectual property.

    Like ship of thesus shit, if you start with a legit paid game of Monopoly, replace every single piece over 20 years, you can still sell it as a "used Monopoly game" because at some point you bought the license. If you made every piece the same way and then sold it, that's not legal

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    It’s in the EULA for every piece of software, including physical.

    *laughs in open source*

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    The Service provides users of Ubuntu with a free subscription to use the Service on up to five physical Ubuntu systems with unlimited number of VMs or containers for the eligible Ubuntu LTS versions as designated by Canonical.

    https://canonical.com/legal/ubuntu-pro/personal

    Why would you assume to own software if you don't even pay to use it?

    You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes

    To prove your point you'd need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (1 child)

    That’s just Ubuntu Pro and it’s basically longer term kernel maintenance plus applies to the universe repo not just main. The only extra functionality is the ability to live patch the kernel. The base install works fine as is but some businesses require the extended support.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    By all means, find me a single example of software you actually own...

    Because that's waaaaaaaaay fucking easier than me listing every open source eula one by one

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.

    They have a Terms of Service for the online services, which you can be banned from for misuse, but this does not prevent you from using the software. You can legally obtain it through any of the hundreds of mirrors, or even compile it from scratch.

    https://terms.archlinux.org/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 3 days ago (2 children)

    Arch Linux has no EULA because it is not sold software like Ubuntu Pro.

    Right, your link is about use of online services...

    The following Terms of Service contain the rules for the use of the internet Platform Arch Linux, operated by the Arch Linux Team, accessible under the domain archlinux.org and various related subdomains (the "Platform") and the respective Services, namely provision of the Arch Linux package platform, the forums, the wiki, the bug reporting tool and a reporting tool for security issues, Arch User Repository (AUR), Mailing Lists, IRC Channels, collaboration pads and the Bulletin Board System (the "Services") of Arch Linux ("Arch Linux", "we") by you as a user (the "User", "you").

    There's no EULA, but after reading up on it, isn't it even considered software?

    Like, it seems to really just be a command line, that straps together a bunch of individual packages, which add up to a very very lightweight OS, and then even more can be added on.

    Seems really cool, and I like the idea. But my understanding is the packages themselves have EULA's on their own and function pretty autonomously.

    I think thats going to the closest anyone gets tho, thanks for linking it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    All packages published to the arch linux repository are free software that can be built from source and have permissive licenses. Non-free software such as nvidia drivers and other things are distributed separately through the AUR, and aren't managed by the Arch Linux team.

    I would consider the collection of software provided to be no different than any other OS with optional packages. There are several forks of Arch Linux like EndeavourOS that have more complete defaults.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    and have permissive licenses

    ...

    That's the difference you don't see.

    There's not one license, there's multiple. Which is a good system, but doesn't mean there's no EULA, it means there's multiple.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 days ago

    A permissive license is a specific category of open source license. As I said, all official repository software is free and open source. If the terms of the license did not allow it to be freely distributed or was a revocable license, it would not be allowed in the arch repository.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 3 days ago (2 children)

    You can do a bullshit fork and then sell it, but if you owned it you could sell the exact same code with zero changes

    To prove your point you’d need that example: an open source program that you can sell for profit with zero changes.

    You can, though? If you find someone stupid enough to buy it, that is.

    All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 3 days ago (1 child)

    All you have to do is change the name and remove any trademarked branding from it.

    So...

    They have to change it to legally sell it?

    Then they didn't own it.

    Although, I guess thanks for explaining what a "bullshit fork" is, I thought that wouldn't need explaining on here to be honest

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •