Sony Stands Its Ground That Customers Do Not Own Digital Games; They Are Just Purchasing a License to Use Them

[Peter_Brosdahl]

Sony has drawn the line in the sand where it stands regarding ownership of games when it comes to digital purchases by making the distinction of licensing in a court hearing. On August 21, Sony stated in a California court, per Gamefile, that “you can use a product in the ways described in the license, […]

See full article...

 

[Grimlakin]

I hold to if you're not selling me a product but a license then I can't steal a product I am only licensed for.

Yea I know its bullshit. I would say that I or users should be able to install software on a trial basis to test it without owning it. A Development trial so to speak.

I mean MS does that with SQL and other software. No reason that sony can't do the same... other than fear their use is so short lived that it wouldn't go full retail in a timely manner.

 

[MadMummy76]

But you do not even own the license since they reserve the right to revoke it at any time without reason.

 

[gdansk]

Legally they are correct. But if it ever goes to a jury trial (it won't), and I'm on that jury (not likely), then their legal overreach will not be enforced.

What people want is simple. They want to pay for a copy of a game to play whenever. Even if Sony's license to distribute the game was revoked. It can shared with my friend(s) or resell later if I do not care for it anymore. And they should be allowed to make a backup of any data.

Steam is perhaps the closest, but still hasn't digitized the resale aspect and limits sharing to a small family group. These are regressions compared to the earlier days of e.g. SNES cartridges.

 

[Uvilla]

Oh nooooo, Sony stated what been true for non physical media access! Noooo, the sky just fell.
Of course they are right, and this is why I dont mind games as a service, and even streaming, for the right price. I am losing nothing with either vs a digital "media purchase", i am purchasing just as much with all 3.

 

[Uvilla]

Legally they are correct. But if it ever goes to a jury trial (it won't), and I'm on that jury (not likely), then their legal overreach will not be enforced.

What people want is simple. They want to pay for a copy of a game to play whenever. Even if Sony's license to distribute the game was revoked. It can shared with my friend(s) or resell later if I do not care for it anymore. And they should be allowed to make a backup of any data.

Steam is perhaps the closest, but still hasn't digitized the resale aspect and limits sharing to a small family group. These are regressions compared to the earlier days of e.g. SNES cartridges.

I disagree, they will win even if jury trial.
Its just the practical truth of digital media, sure theyll try, pinky promise you will have access, until... Xyz, then sorry cant do it, your license is cooked now, cause reasons. Its the nature of the beast.

 

[Brian_B]

I disagree, they will win even if jury trial.
Its just the practical truth of digital media, sure theyll try, pinky promise you will have access, until... Xyz, then sorry cant do it, your license is cooked now, cause reasons. Its the nature of the beast.

Devil is always in that licensing contract you have to accept to use the product.

I mean, you always have the choice to ~not~ pay for the game (and presumably not play it)

 

[gdansk]

I disagree, they will win even if jury trial.

Did you read it? They're never winning a trial if I'm on the jury. It's a simple statement of fact. The best they'll get is a hung jury.
"Most jurors" was not the point of my post. I find it within reason for an individual to treat a digital copy the same as physical copy regardless if they had agreed to the only terms available which demand that they would not.

Sony can make it clear to customers the digital age brought them less rights. But I don't care, the customer expectation remains reasonable.

 

[Brian_B]

Did you read it? They're never winning a trial if I'm on the jury. It's a simple statement of fact. The best they'll get is a hung jury.
"Most jurors" was not the point of my post. I find it within reason for an individual to treat a digital copy the same as physical copy regardless if they had agreed to the only terms available which demand that they would not.

Sony can make it clear to customers the digital age brought them less rights. But I don't care, the customer expectation remains reasonable.

Good lawyers have a way of distilling things down to black or white decisions, and painting you into coming to a conclusion that may be different from your opinion.

Not saying they are right in going about it, or that you can't just stick your foot down and vote your conscious - just that they are good at it. And they are equally good at getting jurors kicked off if they have to admit all the facts are where they are, and rule contrary to that.

 

[Grimlakin]

I'm not worried... the EU will make them swallow the bitter pill.

 

[gdansk]

And they are equally good at getting jurors kicked off if they have to admit all the facts are where they are, and rule contrary to that.

Fundamentally that's their only option. Really, I would rather not make anyone pay a cent or face prison time for circumventing copy protection, or replicating infinite bits on a small scale, to friends/family. I suspect that's a contributing factor why these contract disputes are seldom brought before a court.
It's a simple matter of principle. Regressive contracts, like mandatory arbitration, and perpetual intellectual property are some of the chief ills of (almost exclusively American) society. Games just happen to be in the rather unserious branch of rent-seeking. But it's still regressive and here a juror is not obligated to enforce a law they believe is unjust.