557
Sony lawyers argue that nobody is stupid enough to believe they actually own digital games, because then only one person could buy GTA 6 (www.gamesradar.com)
submitted 3 days ago* by to c/news@lemmy.world
144 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 1 point 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 child)

("hey, let's go to the video store tonight and rent a movie")

Well that's interesting. I've never actually heard someone call it that. I mean, I get your point, but actually, if anything I think people tended to call it the rental shop.

But then, even at video rental places they at least did also sell things, movies and candy. So even if they did call themselves a store, those rental places would actually qualify more as a store than a digital content distributor would.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 22 hours ago (1 child)

    I understand that it was likely not the same in every English-speaking place (rental shop makes it sound like you may be in the UK?), but it was very common usage in the US. It was also used this way even for video rental places that pretty much did nothing else other than rent videos. I don't know what the origin of this usage was though.

    The point that I'm making is that in the eyes of a theoretical jury or judge, this example would be an easy way to demonstrate that "store" didn't imply that you were actually buying the items in it. Like I said, I agree with the intent, but just don't think it would fly legally. But who knows, I'm not a lawyer!

    I do sincerely hope that if it were to come to the point where a court agrees that consumers are not actually "buying" the items, that they will force the vendors to stop using the terms "buy", "sale", and "purchase". But who am I kidding, that probably won't happen.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 22 hours ago (1 child)

    Oh no, I'm from the US, East Coast. I've literally never heard anyone say rental store. But that's fine, doesn't really matter.

    You could still be right, it would probably be possible to convince a judge that this is just common usage. That said, it might be worth trying anyway. You never get any change if you don't try. And we have the slight advantage of being right.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 20 hours ago

    I see, it could be a West vs. East Coast US thing. Although the example I was talking about was "video store", used very casually between friends and relatives, etc.

    Thanks a good point. Worth trying it anyway!

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent