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.

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 202 points 1 month ago (6 children)

if only one person can buy GTA 6, how can more than one person rent GTA 6?

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 159 points 1 month ago (13 children)

    Oh really? Then it's not a store, and it's not a sale. It's a leasing office and a lease.

  • source
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    Actually this is an alright solution.

    They should be forced to change the name of their platform if they want to keep using it. They should be barred from using the term "store".

    They can either continue their business model as is, (as "PlayStation Leasing") or they can change their policy to include full ownership of games and the right to transfer the games they own to other accounts.

    But they don't get to call it a "store" or use words like "buy" or "sale" if that's not what they're actually offering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 111 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    They dont need to keep trying to convice me to never buy another Sony/ Rockstar product. They keep giving more reasons though.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 1 month ago (9 children)

    Sony convinced me that years ago when they sold me an expensive af dvd camcorder and then they hobbled it so it was unusable unless you edited in their crappy software and exported it through their expensive dongles.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    They lost me when they removed basic functionality from the PS3 by update. They lost my dad with betamax.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 99 points 1 month ago (10 children)

    ... wait. That's not obvious. If it was obvious, it wouldn't be a "Buy now" it would be like a "Purchase License."

    Because thats literally how the rest of the software industry works.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    One thing I’ve noticed is that, while they call it a store, they’ve gone out of their way to not use the word buy. It says “add to cart”, and that there are “purchases”, and that you can “check out”. But it’s been a long time since I’ve seen an actual buy button in any App Store I think they’ve seen this coming for a minute.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 88 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Following that logic, pirating software is quite all right, no one is stupid enough to believe someone loses if they make a copy.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 21 points 1 month ago

    Not just software. Anything digital that is protected by copyright. Sony has massive media holdings in the television, movie, and music industries. Here's Wikipedia's list of assets owned by Sony.

    Sony can't speak for everybody who owns a copyright, but it does seem like they're making the sort of argument where the logical end result is that they're giving everybody permission to copy any Sony media without paying.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 79 points 1 month ago* (17 children)

    The solution seems easy enough, don't buy or rent anything from Sony until the issue is resolved.

    This is fixable if consumers band together. Nobody needs to game on a PlayStation (or play GTA on PC/PlayStation), we need water, food, shelter not GTA6

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 1 month ago

    don’t buy or rent anything from Sony until the issue is resolved.

    Way ahead of you. And I don't see a point in buying anything from them even if there is a resolution. You don't own the hardware, the software is a moot point.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 58 points 1 month ago

    If that's so obvious, then why not state it clearly on the packaging?

  • source
  • [–] 46 points 1 month ago (4 children)

    Ah yes, because I own my pair of jeans, or my hoodie, I'm the only person in the world with a pair of jeans and a hoodie...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    A book would be better example.

    You might not own the IP, but you sure as hell own an object containing that IP, which you have an eternal, irrevocable and transferrable license to use.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 1 month ago

    This right here. The existence of carriers is what has always allowed people to own copies of things they themselves did not create.

    Digital “sales” are using mediation to outright ignore that fact that ideas must be expressed in a physical manner for sale. And yes, digital files are physical as long as they continue to be written to storage media like hard drives and tape. Selling access licenses is what they are doing (and I’m okay with that when the companies doing it aren’t asshats about it.) but they also need to stop derailing the discourse with statements about how “we’ve never owned anything ever because we’re not the copyright holder!”

    All of this just demonstrates how much IP law has lagged behind and how abusive corporate IP holders are when exploiting loopholes and faulty mental models.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 42 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    So by that logic, I am the only owner of a 2016 Subaru Impreza in the entire world.

    The Highlander saying “there can be only one!”

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago* (6 children)

    I think the reasoning is that there's only 1 master, and everything else is a copy. But that's still pretty stupid reasoning.

    But at the same time... It's also technically true. Only 1 entity owns the game and that's the entity that made it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 41 points 1 month ago

    So when we bought games on disc, who was the one person who owned the game? John Sony San, who lives at the top of Sony Tower in Sony Plaza?

    Lol this weasel logic they'll use to justify their petty greed is ridiculous...

  • source
  • [–] 35 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child)

    I don't think anyone expects that they are buying the exclusive copyright license for reproduction. People just want to own their copies. You know like with books.

    We want this for our games: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 28 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Do they want piracy? Because that's how you make it morally legitimate.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 28 points 1 month ago*

    I just checked with my wife, giving her no context other than checking out, having paid for a game. She doesn't understand and said it's a bunch of bullshit. She doesn't even play games, she just gets them for someone else as a gift.

    Apparently you can't gift a game because it's never yours to give.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 1 month ago (3 children)

    Right, like, how "owning" a car means that you need to purchase the entire means of production required to produce said car, including all patents and trademarks.

    This guy is somehow multi-rail drifting his pseudo-capitalist argument with like, a cartoon version of communism. It's like he dropped acid and decided to become Frankenstein's Economist.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 26 points 1 month ago (2 children)

    I own a copy of the game.....

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 1 month ago (7 children)

    I was gonna buy a new PlayStation but now I'm not.

    Did they teach this in business school? Repulsing customers for profit.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 22 points 1 month ago (5 children)

    The problem with this argument was their short-sighted business model. They sold digital games for the same price as physical games.

    If consumers are accustom to "owning" physical games, and then pay the same price for digital, of course they would assume they own those as well.

    If instead you needed to buy a subscription to each game that came out, and they only charged $10/month for the latest AAA game, the "you don't own it" argument would actually be reasonable.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 22 points 1 month ago

    I find it interesting that the article uses GTA 6 as the example when Sony uses Resident Evil Requiem as the example. It’s clickbait tactics and I hate it.

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 1 month ago

    That's not what ownership of digital copies means, fuckshits.

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    Yep so all the piracy that goes around isn't illegal either right?

  • source
  • [–] 19 points 1 month ago

    Oh, right, so it's all just one copy that we're all sharing, then? Here's an idea in that case: let's cut out the middleman, and I'll share my copy of it with all of you for an agreed price.
    Free is my first, best and final offer.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Sony argues that its current customer-facing disclosures ensure that “reasonable consumers would not be misled” into believing they actually own their digital games.

    They can make that argument, but I think they'll have a hard time finding evidence to support it. Judges aren't stupid, but they can be corrupt, however.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Wish people could actually have the willpower to effectively boycott anything enough to later. Happens with iPhone every year, they bitch and moan about it being the hand phone, then go buy one.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 1 month ago

    Until they change every storefront to say rent instead of buy/purchase/etc I will believe it.

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 1 month ago (1 child)

    Sony has been going to shit at LEAST ever since their fucking 2011 hack and online shutdown. Endless stupid decisions one after another. Trash.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 1 month ago

    There is credible evidence to believe that after Sony JP fumbled the PS3 launch, and was losing market share to the Xbox 360, Sony US stepped in and took the reins after righting the ship in the latter half of that console generation.

    This is what I predominantly blame for the myriad of bad (anti-consumer) decisions made from the PS4 onwards.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 1 month ago

    This makes my choice to stop at the ps3 a very good choice.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›