559
submitted 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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 new old
[-] judgy_jackdaw@lemmy.world 202 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] zecg@lemmy.world 49 points 3 weeks ago

The answer is always the human centipede

[-] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 17 points 3 weeks ago

Patient gaming in a nutshell.

[-] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 10 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WesternInfidels@feddit.online 22 points 3 weeks ago

Son it's time we talked about fractional reserve banking

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Lydon_Feen@lemmy.world 159 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Wakko@hell.cloud 115 points 3 weeks ago

If buying isn't owning, then pirating isn't theft.

[-] Lydon_Feen@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 38 points 3 weeks ago

Good point. Don’t say we’re buying it. They use the terminology of ownership when you’re paying money.

[-] Cocodapuf@lemmy.world 28 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] the_riviera_kid@lemmy.world 111 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] Alcoholicorn@mander.xyz 28 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] AzuranAurora@piefed.ca 30 points 3 weeks ago

Also can't forget when they installed a rootkit on your computer for DRM purposes. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuck that.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 99 points 3 weeks ago

... 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.

[-] oyzmo@piefed.social 40 points 3 weeks ago

Purchase time limited license

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works 12 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] zecg@lemmy.world 88 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] BillyClark@piefed.social 21 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] dmtalon@infosec.pub 79 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

[-] aesthelete@lemmy.world 29 points 3 weeks ago

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

This will never work in America. I know people who already bought a PS5 just for this and pre-ordered (!) the game at $1000000 or whatever they're charging.

load more comments (9 replies)
[-] NewNewAugustEast@lemmy.zip 16 points 3 weeks 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.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 58 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] bl4ckp1xx13@lemmy.dbzer0.com 46 points 3 weeks ago

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...

[-] Madrigal@lemmy.world 82 points 3 weeks ago

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.

[-] derfunkatron@lemmy.world 14 points 3 weeks 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 3 weeks ago

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!”

[-] Kolanaki@pawb.social 15 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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.

[-] einlander@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

So nobody actually owns books as they are copies of a digital master.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 3 weeks ago

There were final prototypes of the 2016 Subaru Impreza and all the others are copies off of that.

Just admit it: I am Mr. Subaru now! /s

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MonkeMischief@lemmy.today 41 points 3 weeks 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...

[-] Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de 34 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SpaceTimeInterval@lemmy.cafe 28 points 3 weeks ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] MagicShel@lemmy.zip 28 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks 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.

[-] JustTheWind@lemmy.world 26 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 26 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] DementedSociety@lemmy.world 11 points 3 weeks ago

the fucking mental gymnastics needed here are absurd.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] SeeMarkFly@lemmy.ml 24 points 3 weeks ago

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

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] coolie4@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] danc4498@lemmy.world 22 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] LodeMike@lemmy.today 20 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] crapwittyname@feddit.uk 19 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] levophed@lemmy.zip 18 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Erusset@slrpnk.net 17 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] Tiral@lemmy.zip 17 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 17 points 3 weeks ago

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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] callouscomic@lemmy.zip 15 points 3 weeks ago

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

[-] thatKamGuy@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 weeks 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.

[-] titanicx@lemmy.zip 13 points 3 weeks ago

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

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 01 Sep 2026
559 points (99.3% liked)

News

39306 readers
2161 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.


Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.


7. No duplicate posts.


If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.


All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS