Gamers Sue PlayStation: It's Not Clear They're Selling Licenses Rather Than Ownership of Games (aftermath.site) 154
The gaming news site Aftermath reports:
Four gamers are suing Sony Interactive Entertainment for allegedly breaking a California law that requires digital storefronts selling games to make it clear people are buying licenses, not actually owning the games.
Sony Interactive Entertainment's PlayStation store uses language like "Buy Now" and "Confirm Purchase," lawyers wrote in a complaint filed on Thursday... "In reality, consumers who 'purchase' digital games through PlayStation do not obtain ownership of those products," lawyers wrote. "Instead, PlayStation grants only a limited, revocable license to access the software, subject to multiple restrictions contained in a separate Software Product License Agreement"....
[T]he PlayStation store does have a disclosure. Above the "Confirm Purchase" button, there's a note: "By selecting [Confirm Purchase], you agree to complete the purchase in accordance with the PlayStation Terms of Service before using this content. You further acknowledge that your purchase of this digital product amounts to a license subject to the Software Product License Agreement." These four gamers aren't satisfied with that; they said in the complaint that it's too small, and that "a reasonable customer completing a purchase would not necessarily notice this disclosure."
"It's a proposed class action complaint, meaning the group of four gamers is asking a judge to grant them class action status."
Sony Interactive Entertainment's PlayStation store uses language like "Buy Now" and "Confirm Purchase," lawyers wrote in a complaint filed on Thursday... "In reality, consumers who 'purchase' digital games through PlayStation do not obtain ownership of those products," lawyers wrote. "Instead, PlayStation grants only a limited, revocable license to access the software, subject to multiple restrictions contained in a separate Software Product License Agreement"....
[T]he PlayStation store does have a disclosure. Above the "Confirm Purchase" button, there's a note: "By selecting [Confirm Purchase], you agree to complete the purchase in accordance with the PlayStation Terms of Service before using this content. You further acknowledge that your purchase of this digital product amounts to a license subject to the Software Product License Agreement." These four gamers aren't satisfied with that; they said in the complaint that it's too small, and that "a reasonable customer completing a purchase would not necessarily notice this disclosure."
"It's a proposed class action complaint, meaning the group of four gamers is asking a judge to grant them class action status."
Have you ever been able to buy the software? (Score:5, Informative)
Even if I go back to the 1990s and boxed retail software, you were never actually buying the software, your purchase was for the license to use it.
The real issue here is the gamers being sold software whose functionality is tied to third-party servers and denied first sale doctrine (the ability to transfer/resell their license if they want to someone else).
Re:Have you ever been able to buy the software? (Score:5, Informative)
The real issue here is the gamers being sold software whose functionality is tied to third-party servers and denied first sale doctrine (the ability to transfer/resell their license if they want to someone else).
It's more than just the right of first sale; with software that is licensed via server-side communication, nothing prevents the company from terminating your authorization for any reason, and you have basically no recourse at that point, other than to sue.
There's a lot wrong with software in the modern era.
Re:Have you ever been able to buy the software? (Score:5, Interesting)
Say: I go to the store (whatever store it is), and buy GTA6 for $80 or whatever it'll cost (haven't bought a new game since Diablo II expansion was new).
The difference is I buy it (as in, the way we used to buy games, where that physical copy just worked, and once they got to the online activation thing, there was typically a way to activate it off-line) to what we have today (I "buy the game for the physical copy price, but am in fact _renting_ it long-term until such time the company deems the game 'old enough' and flips the switch).
If I'm not buying a copy of the game to use for as long as the disc still works (even if it has to be multiple discs), then I am in fact, not _buying_ it... I am merely renting it long term, and when I pay money for it, that should be stated plainly and clearly (and, I don't want an $80 empty jewel case... couldn't I just take a slip of paper to the register and fill out a thing at the register (to get the activation code on the receipt or maybe have the receipt contain a code you enter on the website and they send you a letter with the activation code _(and, either one includes the preset game deactivation/shut down date)_.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Have you ever been able to buy the software? (Score:5, Funny)
Lisp programmer.
Re: Have you ever been able to buy the software? (Score:2)
Thereâ(TM)s a lot wrong the the neoliberal application of capitalism in the modern era.
Re:Have you ever been able to buy the software? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thats always been a gross simplification of the rights generally involved with a software sale. While yes, technically its a license to use software, rather than the software itself, license sales have always had a series of expectations associated with them in law, common law and in user expectations. And those expectations matter in a courtroom.
Most of the world consumer law is very clear that if you give a license to use something, and its sold as "buy" rather than "rent" or "time limited" , its not revokable and its subject to the same sort of consumer protection laws buying a toaster or a car has. Most importantly that it remains fit for purpose for the natural lifetime of the product, and that term "lifetime" is absolutely not "until we tire of letting you use that thing you paid for" but rather "How long would a reasonable consumer believe they can use this before its basically bitrot". To simplify that, assume it means "as long as the physical software is capable of running without a rewrite" and NOT "until we send the kill-command to the DRM".
The tension here is that software is attempting to move to a service model whilst trying to retain the language of a product model. You dont purchase a pool cleaning man, you hire a pool cleaning man. Well, unless your in a southern state during a terrible time in history, I suppose.
And thats where cases like this the complainant stands a good chance of winning. Because if California law has strong protections (A lot of america *doesnt* , but europe* and australia but apparently not canada for reasons that are mystifying to me, have strong protections) then if it can be shown that at the point of purchase it was not made clear that this product was time limited or was going to be made unavailable to people who purchased it, then the complainants have a strong case for deceptive advertising.
* I am aware europe just voted down a 'stop killing games' law. I am surprised by that, because honestly, it should have been the default anyway. I smell the acrid stench of industry lobbyists foul deeds
Re: (Score:2)
Then what you are describing is not at all a license.
Re: (Score:2)
Even if I go back to the 1990s and boxed retail software, you were never actually buying the software, your purchase was for the license to use it.
The 1990s are irrelevant, because a new law was passed in 2025 (California, where this lawsuit was filed).
If Sony was not making clear that they are licensing not selling, then they will lose the lawsuit (caveat emptor, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
The 1990s are irrelevant, because a new law was passed in 2025 (California, where this lawsuit was filed).
It's relevant because it's how things have been for decades. This isn't some new-hotness enshitification strat where suddenly buying software only means you're buying a license. It's how things have been since (I bet) before the plaintiffs were born. Even in the time of picking up PS2 discs at GameStop you were only buying a license to run those games on your console, not actually owning the code on them.
Re: (Score:3)
It's relevant because it's how things have been for decades. This isn't some new-hotness
Uh, you clearly missed something in junior school [youtube.com].
Laws change things that have been the same for decades. That is what the legislature does.
Two statutory carveouts: first sale and RAM copies (Score:4, Interesting)
Even in the time of picking up PS2 discs at GameStop you were only buying a license to run those games on your console
This license consists of uses carved out as noninfringing in the copyright law. For video games distributed in physical copies, two carveouts are most salient: exhaustion of the exclusive distribution right with respect to a particular copy after the first sale, and making private copies required to use a computer program, such as ephemerally reproducing the program in RAM. (Under US law, these are 17 USC 109 and 17 USC 117. Feel free to describe analogous carveouts in other countries' copyright law.)
What these carveouts have in common is that neither the copyright owner nor a platform gatekeeper can remotely make copies unusable. PlayStation Store doesn't give licensees even this assurance.
Re: (Score:2)
What these carveouts have in common is that neither the copyright owner nor a platform gatekeeper can remotely make copies unusable. PlayStation Store doesn't give licensees even this assurance.
Which is not an ownership issue, it's a DRM/license enforcement issue. The plaintiffs can still get the same benefits of the product even if their purchase is just for a license. The plaintiff's problem isn't because they don't "own" the software.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is not an ownership issue, it's a DRM/license enforcement issue.
Correct. The digital restrictions management regime on paid downloads from PlayStation Store doesn't grant rights to a licensee that are equivalent to those that the law reserves for the owner of a copy. The complaint, as I understand it, is that the required notice of inequivalence is not conspicuous enough.
The plaintiffs can still get the same benefits of the product even if their purchase is just for a license.
The benefits are not the same if the publisher or the platform gatekeeper retains the ability to remotely disable licensed software.
Re: (Score:2)
The benefits are not the same if the publisher or the platform gatekeeper retains the ability to remotely disable licensed software.
No, you're misunderstanding my reply here. I'm saying the users can have the same benefits of access/use without the remote enforcement and delivery mechanism even if their purchase is only for a license (because that's how things were back in earlier times). Their suit is flawed in that it is focusing on legalese of what "ownership" is, instead of suing for the publisher's ability to unilaterally remove their access to something they paid for. That's why this is all dumb. They will never truly "own" the so
Re: (Score:2)
But, that PS2 disc will just work, even after Sony goes bankrupt and their servers are sold for scrap and we had to shut the internet down to stop AI.
Sure, the disc-copy of Windows I bought is mostly just the license, but the disc still works even after they shut the activation server down.
Re: (Score:2)
But, that PS2 disc will just work, even after Sony goes bankrupt and their servers are sold for scrap and we had to shut the internet down to stop AI.
That's not an issue with the "ownership" of the software, as the plaintiffs here are suing for. That's my point from the first post I made on this topic. They are suing claiming they thought they were buying the software and they are only buying a license. There's nothing wrong with buying only a license, it's the fact the software can only be obtained and used at the blessing of the third-party servers they have no control over, which is not necessary. They can buy "only a license" and still be given acces
Re: (Score:2)
We never ever bought software to truly be able to do with it as we pleased. If this were the case, every piece of software would cost from dozens of thousands to billions of dollars per sale made. After all, nothing would've prevented the first buyer from legitimately making and selling copies of or otherwise sharing it with whoever they wanted.
Re: (Score:2)
You were buying that specific copy of the game, actually, just like movies and music.
Re: Have you ever been able to buy the software? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is you were buying a license. The software maker couldn't really revoke your license to use it.
With PlayStation, Steam, etc., you aren't buying a license. You're renting one. That is, you get a license to use the software, but PlayStation, Valve, Microsoft, etc may at anytime decide to revoke that license from you for whatever reason. So at best, it's a long term rental without a clear return date.
And all the other stuff relating to owning the license versus renting the license - like being a
Re: Have you ever been able to buy the software? (Score:2)
Even if I go back to the 1990s and boxed retail software, you were never actually buying the software, your purchase was for the license to use it.
If that were true, copy protection would not exist and software companies would not care about software piracy or about the right to do a personal backup. Your statement is too simplistic for this discussion.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the really old days this was it. You could "copy that floppy" and have your own pirate version of the software.
In the later times you received a unique serial number/registration code in the software package that would unlock the software. This was not verified with a remote server or policed for the number of active installs. But then developed keygens to generate registration codes that software would accept as valid, and things turned to needing online activation.
A logical solution would be that
Waste of time (Score:5, Interesting)
And just like all the other similar lawsuits to this, it will won't get anywhere. Software sales have always worked this way (buying the license) and *online* software sales with server-sided or account-based licensing have always been inherently nontransferable (outside of selling your whole account privately). And Sony's store has the required legal disclosures. People not bothering to read the text that is plainly in front of them, or not understanding basic software licensing, is their own problem. I would call the lawyers repping these kids (no way they're older than 30) dumb for attempting this, but they're probably getting paid either way and thus don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
will won't
Guess my brain decided halfway through not using the contraction that it did want to use it. Sigh.
Re: You made worse mistakes than that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost like I read the summary and then read the actual article and then read the law. Sony's store already complies with CA law exactly as written.
Re: (Score:2)
And just like all the other similar lawsuits to this, it will won't get anywhere.
Unlike other similar lawsuits, this is based on California's law requiring explicit disclosure. The wording of the law is such that it requires the notice to be clear and conspicuous, saying the notice needs to draw attention to itself. Just having it be in a legal disclosure does not meet the requirements. The screenshot in the article, assuming it's accurate, does not in fact meet those requirements.
Re: (Score:2)
The wording of the law is such that it requires the notice to be clear and conspicuous, saying the notice needs to draw attention to itself.
Incorrect. It requires plain language, link to full terms, and distinction from other ToS. In the screen shot, the box is obvious, one sentence covers ToS and link, the second separately covers the license factoid and link, and the text is very similar in size to most other text on the screen. These plaintiffs are just stupid.
Re:Waste of time (Score:4, Informative)
You're just pounding the table like an illiterate moron while making false assertions.
It requires clear and conspicuous notice, unless they obtain the customer's express consent. Putting a checkbox with a link to a disclosure is not even close to express consent.
Express consent usually requires putting the notice into it's own form, that you agree to with no other terms attached. That's why in financial or medical settings you're often asked for your signature multiple times; the things requiring express consent you're signing to acknowledge that single thing.
If you don't understand the details, don't pound the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Man it must be hard being as stupid as you are.
It requires clear and conspicuous notice
Per the law: "(1) “Clear and conspicuous” means in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language, such as in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks."
(emphasis mine)
The box counts. Express consent is never required per the CA law.
Re: (Score:2)
Just an idiot pretending to be know-y.
Emphasis yours, because you're grasping at straws. You didn't even comprehend the details you're arguing over.
Express consent is never required per the CA law.
Hey moron, it is required if the notice wasn't conspicuous. You were almost there; you got as far as reading the words about conspicuous notice, but then you fell right on your face and said:
The box counts.
No. A checkbox means nothing . It's the same to have a checkbox, or not even disclose it at all. It either has to be conspicuous, or you have to get express consent. A chec
Re: (Score:2)
People not bothering to read the text that is plainly in front of them...
What good does that do? The companies can change the terms whenever the hell they want for any reason. The text means nothing.
Software licenses should be contracts, not "agreements". Then the terms actually mean something.
Re: (Score:2)
Software license agreements *are* contracts and the terms do mean something.
Re: (Score:2)
And just like all the other similar lawsuits to this, it will won't get anywhere. Software sales have always worked this way
It's not even a case of "software working this way" as much as it is a case of "Buying" or "Purchasing" isn't limited in any way to the act of getting goods. Historically the term has very much been used for both services and IP. And goods, services, and IP have always had contractual components.
Some lawyer convinced their stupid client to part with some money I guess.
Re: Learn to read, noob (Score:2)
And just like all the other similar lawsuits to this, it will won't get anywhere. Software sales have always worked this way (buying the license)
It doesn't matter how it has "always worked", because a new law was passed and Sony must follow the law [mofo.com]. At least read the summary before posting.
Re: (Score:2)
Sony is already compliant with the CA law, regardless of what these retarded plaintiffs think.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The law is not complicated or hard to understand. This lawsuit will never see the light of day in court.
revocable (Score:2)
Mostly, the difference is some legales, but the kicker is: "revocable". That is an insane difference. I'm quite sure it doesn't say you get a refund if they revoke your license.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't deserve to be playing games in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's fine. It's just fact. You don't respect the time and effort that went into creating your enjoyment, then you factually don't deserve to have it at all.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't respect the time and effort that went into creating your enjoyment
Say I buy an indefinite license to use a video game. Then the game's publisher or the platform's owner unilaterally revokes that license. What do I have to show for having "respect[ed] the time and effort that went into creating your enjoyment"?
Re: (Score:2)
What do I have to show for having "respect[ed] the time and effort that went into creating your enjoyment"?
Memories of your enjoyment.
Re: revocable (Score:4, Interesting)
Paying for something and then ignoring the terms you agreed to when you paid for it is one thing, but not paying for something then taking it anyway because you disagree, that's just dumb. It's not something you need and can't afford.
Nobody owes you a video game on your terms you entitled snowflake. What a loser.
Re: revocable (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, let's correct my comment a bit since you, being a snowflake, couldn't grasp the "why" of it. I actually used to buy games. But those were games that I still own, and if I want to play them again (even decades later), I can. While the games they currently sell to you they can take them away from you at any time, unilaterally and without warning. You'd have to be an idiot to accept those kinds of terms. So, pirating.
Maybe one of these days they'll go back to selling games that are actually yours, and then I'll go back to buying games. But I think it's unlikely they'll change their minds.
Re: (Score:2)
Buy indie games.
It's only the big players who have these delusions.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't own any games and never have, unless you created it yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
So, the disc copy of Myst on my shelf (and, I do own the shelf) isn't my copy of the game?
Bet it'd be infuriating to blow the money to buy GTAV, get it home, and find that they shut down the activation and download server, wouldn't it.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You own a license to install and play Myst for as long as you have the media and hardware needed. If you lose that media or license, you aren't entitled to a another one.
Re: (Score:2)
But those were games that I still own, and if I want to play them again (even decades later), I can.
No you don't. You own a limited use license to those games. The fact that the licensor hasn't implement a revocation system is technical, not legal, nothing to do with sale, nothing to do with purchasing vs renting. In fact you may very well be illegally breaching the terms of the license agreement if you install it today (most license agreements explicitly stated it was limited to use on a single PC).
You're a pirate. Piracy still works today by the way.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should you get a refund when they can't get a "refund" for your enjoyment from their product? That's like demanding a movie theater refund money you've spent previously because they no longer have the movie available anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not saying the right answer is to get a refund. The right answer is to not make the license revokable.
For the theater comparison: If the theatre would invalidate my ticket and throw me out mid-movie, you can be sure that I'd ask for a refund. And in any sane jurisdiction, I'd get it.
Re: (Score:2)
The right answer is to not make the license revokable.
No. Because in the case of games with online features (or entirely only online like MMOs) if you are breaking rules, cheating, or otherwise being abusive in some way, shape, or form, you don't deserve to keep your license to play regardless of the amount of money you may have paid to acquire it.
Re: (Score:2)
Narrowing:
1. The right answer in the case of games with a substantial offline experience is to not make the license for the offline portion revocable.
2. The right answer in the case of games without a substantial offline experience is to describe the license as a rental at all times.
Re: (Score:2)
1. This wouldn't work for most games and would break most of them worse in the long run.
2. Rentals aren't not an accurate description either. When you rent something, you deprive the owner of that thing because you are the temporary "owner". When you rent a room or a house, the owner is not in it with you. When you rent tools from the hardware store, no one else can you those tools until you return them. Software does not work that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you agreed to let them change the terms when you signed up.
Re: (Score:2)
All three major console makers require all customers to "agree[] to let them change the terms when you signed up." If a game developer wants to sell a customer an indefinite license that the console maker can't revoke, the developer has no way to do so. This appears to be evidence of a cartel to me. How is it not?
Re: (Score:2)
Developers can make the license whatever they want including on consoles.
Once the console's servers are shut down (Score:2)
Developers can make the license whatever they want including on consoles.
Not once the console maker shuts down the platform's reactivation servers.
Or say the publisher wants to publish a multiplayer game where players 2 through 4 can download a limited-functionality version of the game without charge so long as player 1 is a paying licensee and on their mutual contacts list. This resembles the model used by StarCraft spawned installations, single-Pak multiplayer on Game Boy Advance, and DS Download Play on Nintendo DS. I don't think all consoles support this sort of game sharing
Re: (Score:2)
Not once the console maker shuts down the platform's reactivation servers.
Which has nothing to do with the license given by the game. They can give you a perpetual, forever license. That does not mean they have to make it perpetually acquirable or activatable.
I don't think all consoles support this sort of game sharing.
All current consoles technically do, but it depends on the developer and/or publisher to make it work. Example: It Takes Two. A player can invite anyone to play for free. Nintendo has done various similar things on many of their games for a long time now.
Vote with your wallet (Score:2)
Just don't buy these crappy licenses. Retro-gaming is booming for a very good reason.
And, if you're looking for another reason not to buy -- the way hardware prices are going, retro emulators are probably all we'll be able to play soon because nobody will be able to afford the GPUs and RAM needed to play the next wave of new release games anyway.
They never sold games (Score:2)
but perpetual licenses together with a medium that worked without internet access. If they would have sold you the game, you would have been allowed to copy it.
Re: (Score:2)
That's like saying publishers of printed books, zines, and newspapers never sold books, zines, and newspapers.
Re: (Score:2)
You are allowed to copy these for your friends (but not for selling or public sharing). You are not allowed to copy video games.
Re: (Score:2)
printed books, zines, and newspapers
You are allowed to copy these for your friends (but not for selling or public sharing).
I never heard of that being the case in the United States, where the lawsuit described in the featured article was filed.
ANY online game, it's just a license ! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And, that's what's at issue, here.
You click But It Now or purchase the game/software at a store... are you, in fact, long-term renting the game for $85 or are you buying a copy of the game? If you are buying a copy of the game, do you not have an expectation that you can play that game or use that software next year or the year after that?
And, this doesn't even get into making a copy for your own private use in case the bought disc gets scratched or eaten by the dog.
It's fine. (Score:2)
If they're not really selling games, then the gamers aren't really pirating them, either.
Another useless 'class action'. (Score:2)
Need to legislate language (Score:2)
Make "Buy", "Own", and "Sell" reserved for actually owning something rather than licensing.
Require the use of words like "Rent", "License", and "Borrow" when we are talking about licensing things.
After all when you pay a landlord a monthly fee for the use of an apartment nobody says you bought it, own it, or it was sold.
Similarly, we need to require IP businesses to follow the same conventions.
Re:What does someone think "owning" a game would m (Score:4, Interesting)
Did your purchasing a copy of Myst give you _only_ a license to play only a copy that works until Broderbund and/or Cyan says that license key only works for 1.5 years _or_ when they decide it won't work anymore?
No, it didn't. You had the physical disc, and a license key (I know Diablo II worked like follows): you install the game from disc(s) (either after inputting your key, or you'd have to input the key when loading the game for the first time); and even if you didn't have internet, the game would verify the key offline and work just fine.
When I buy a copy of GTA7 or whatever, I expect a disc that lets me install the game and play it, and when the harddrive fails I can replace the drive and reinstall from the disc and keep playing.
That's the issue... ownership is owning a copy of the game VS a license to use it until some determined time. This is like a longer-term FlexPlay business model.
If you're gonna shut the server down in two years, maybe the game shouldn't cost $100, and what do you need an empty DVD case for?
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument mostly doesn't make sense as you are complaining about digital vs physical along with an example of a game that, originally, couldn't have even been sold digitally. Old software was sold with perpetual, forever licenses, because old software was sold as-is. The license works for that exact software in that exact state - no updates, no fixes. You've have never owned a copy of a game, unless they also gave you a copy of the source code - it's always been licenses. The presence of the internet ha
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:4, Informative)
It's true that the lawsuit isn't very well worded, though, because the same thing is true even today. You own the copy of the software you install even today. What's different today is that the software you buy and own and install is not the game, but a client that can give you access to the game. You still own and can keep that, for all the good it'll do you.
The discussion shouldn't be as much about ownership of the copies of the software, but whether that software is functional without external services. I agree with the lawsuit that using words like "purchase" because, while it's technically true that they sell you a copy of the client, that client is worthless on its own. The important distinction is between buying a piece of software or subscribing to a service. Selling a copy of Myst is the former, "buying" a game on PSN is the latter, and it has nothing to do with a disc being involved or not.
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. About pretty much everything. It has always been, and still is, licenses.
Re: (Score:2)
When you bought the physical disk, you bought the right to do whatever you wanted with that disk.
Incorrect. You did not buy any rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly.
Although, it'd sure be nice if buying GTA6 came with a physical copy of the game that could be played offline for as long as the disc I bought worked.
I'd settle for downloading the game as a file I can burn to a disc or two.
Re: (Score:2)
You've have never owned a copy of a game
A "copy" under United States copyright law is any physical object in which a work of authorship is fixed, such as a game cartridge or game disc. The owner of a lawfully made copy of a work enjoys two carveouts, or uses deemed noninfringing. One is reselling that copy (17 USC 109). Another is making private copies essential to the use of a computer program (17 USC 117). These carveouts subsist as long as the copy remains readable. A license through PlayStation Store does not.
Re: (Score:2)
And that "copy" that is owned is still just a license. You can still create copies of installation media for backup purposes. The only thing you really lose is the ability to resell your license easily.
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing you really lose is the ability to resell your license easily.
Or, in the case of certain failure modes of PlayStation Store (such as end of support for a particular platform), the ability to restore your license to replacement hardware.
Re: (Score:2)
Which has nothing to do with the licensing terms or the law, and more to do with the fact that Sony's software and network engineers are bad at their jobs.
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:2)
Ownership is not source code.
Don't try to tie those together. Linking those does not end well.
Re: (Score:2)
Did your purchasing a copy of Myst give you _only_ a license to play only a copy that works until Broderbund and/or Cyan says that license key only works for 1.5 years _or_ when they decide it won't work anymore?
Yes. They haven't exercised their right for withdrawal nor is it clear they implemented a technical ability to do so, but the license very much did only give the things you said. Even in the 90s the standard licenses were very clear that the publisher retains all rights.
No, it didn't. You had the physical disc, and a license key (I know Diablo II worked like follows): you install the game from disc(s)
Wait... you installed it willy-nilly like that? Most license agreements only permit the installation on a single machine. You clearly haven't read it and you sound like you breached the license terms. Bad boy.
What you *did* and what you were
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What does ownership of property do?
What the owner wants.
Sony wants to sell something and remain owner. The verb that belongs in that sentence is "rent".
You're right, it doesn't make any sense.
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:2)
Sony wants to sell something and remain owner. The verb that belongs in that sentence is "rent".
That's literally how copyright works, you retain ownership. You sell copies with strings attached. We're debating the strings, not the ownership.
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:2)
Yes, but once you sell copies with atringa attached, you cannot change the strings after the fact.
Once you give out a license with a Windows CD that allows the user to run it, you cannot change yohr mind and say "wait, you can't run it anymore, I changed my mind, but I WILL keep your money" -- which is what Sony does.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. Those licenses always had terms, fine print, and EULAs. Many of which I an confident had clauses that allowed the vendor to terminate your write to use the software at least under certain conditions.
Just because they had not effective detection and enforcement mechanism does not mean the legal condition never existed.
Honestly that gets us into other odd questions like what is a sold license is it an authorized/authenticated copy, the split of paper the license terms are printed on? If you di
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:2)
It's really abojt the expectation. Onfe you "buy" something you expect your relation to it to resemble ownership. And crippling a product.doesn't fulfill thay expectation.
The whole concept of intellectual property was bollocks to begin wth, and there are those of us who pointed this out decades ago. "Ownership" at its core is based on th concept of scarcity - the fact that if I "own" a loaf of bread (which cannot be easily replicated), you cannot own to same loaf; I'm effectively excluding you and everyone
Re: (Score:2)
It's really about the expectation. Once you "buy" something you expect your relation to it to resemble ownership. And crippling a product doesn't fulfill that expectation.
This IMO is the crux of the problem - you pay a one-off price to buy what you think is a perpetual licence to a game, only to have the publisher stop supporting the ability for you to run the game at a later date.
Hope this is the core of the issue at hand as a perpetual licence should not require manufacturer support to enable the product at a later date - I should be able to install the product on a different device and be able to get it working.
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game woul (Score:2)
Under US and presumably much of the world, one party can change the terms however they like as long as they added a provision allowing them to do so. The doctrine is called âoefreedom to contractâ and operates under the fictional principle that both parties are bargaining from equal positions.
With software, itâ(TM)s an annoyance. But withe medical care, safety equipment, cars, a myriad other examples, it can be deadly as applied to limitations of liability etc.
Yay Captialism!
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game wou (Score:2)
Then there's also the issue of falsely advertising a product.
Hence: a court will have to decide.
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game wou (Score:2)
There's also a rule of interpretation that in adhesion contracts, i.e., ones where one side is significantly disadvantaged in setting the terms through relative levels of bargaining power, or expertise, that any disputed terms will be constr
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:3)
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:2)
Licensed for how long? And how do you obtain a copy of the software to exercise your licensed rights?
Re: (Score:2)
Title 17, United States Code, reserves specific rights to the owner of a copy. It defines a copy as a physical object in which a work is fixed (17 USC 101).
Licensed for how long?
The owner of a copy of a computer program retains the right to use that copy, including the right to make essential ephemeral copies in RAM, as long as the copy remains readable (17 USC 117).
And how do you obtain a copy of the software to exercise your licensed rights?
As I understand it, ownership of a physical object is defined by the personal property laws of the several states.
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:2)
The laws aren't suitable to model this problem then. It's more complicated than that because the mere copy doesn't suffice for being able to actually use the product.
The customer (rightfully IMO) claims to be within their right to expect to use the product without artificial after the fact restrictions, omce they click "Buy".
Re: (Score:2)
Sony must follow California law if they want to do business in California [mofo.com].
Re: What does someone think "owning" a game would (Score:2)
What you buy has to be defined, the argument here is Sony isn't sticking to the definition they are giving to the buyer.