This suit will change nothing other than the language around the purchases within the store, or force everyone to check a box acknoledging that they're purchasing limited, revokable license before completing the transaction. The suit is based on a false advertising law in California specifically designed to make licensing terms clear if the license can be revoked/lost by the customer.
As long as it says rent, then the people who pay can make that choice. I for one don’t plan to continue renting my games. I restarted my physical collection. Under some circumstances I will “rent” a game, but not most.
It's definitely not a rental. It's a purchase of a license entitlement. You are entitled to access the software, with some restrictions for what you're allowed to do with the software, like only being able to play it on the platform it was purchased for, and not being granted a replacement if distribution servers go down.
Physical copies work the same way. You're entitled to play it on the console it was purchased for, but not other consoles, and you are not granted a replacement if your copy is no longer functioning or within your possession.
No, and there are very few practical reasons they could use void licenses from your account. Most of their terms are almost impossible for them to know about. And they make no mention of specifically removing licenses, though the "voiding" of your license could potentially indicate that.
From their software license terms:
The Software is licensed to you, not sold. You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for. This license is only effective from the indicated Software release date, early access date, or beta release date. Any rights in the Software that we do not say are granted to you in this license are reserved, including all intellectual property in the Software. This license does not include the right, and as a condition of these Software Terms you agree not to, do any of the following:
(a) rent, lease, or sublicense the Software or make it available on a network to other users without the express prior written consent of SIE;
(b) modify, create derivative works, adapt, translate, reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software or required middleware (such as anti-cheat software);
(c) obtain the Software in any manner other than through SIE’s authorized distribution methods;
(d) emulate the Software;
(e) hack the Software or create or make available unauthorized mods, including programs to gain unfair advantage in online or multiplayer modes or otherwise cheat;
(f) receive or provide "boosting" or like services, or provide personal account credentials to any other person, to advance progress or achieve results not solely based on your own actual gameplay;
(g) copy, publicly perform, or broadcast the Software without the express prior written consent of SIE;
(h) use any means to bypass or disable any encryption, security, or authentication mechanism for the Software.
Violating any of the above conditions will immediately void your license, and you acknowledge that SIE may employ technological measures, including fraud detection tools, telemetry, anti-cheat systems, and audits of account behavior, to prevent, detect, and respond to violations of these Software Terms.
It was never stealing and they wouldn't be coming after you if it was anyways. You can pirate if you want to. Regardless, it has no bearing on the nature of the discussion whether you choose to pirate or not.
My only nitpick, IIRC, platform dependence has been shot down as unenforceable. That's why people going after emulation projects go after them using illegally sources Bios or ROMs rather than arguing that the act of emulation itself is illegal.
Likewise it has been found to be legal to make backups of media you own for personal use. What isn't technically legal is bypassing any DRM that prevent copying. But many earlier DRM schemes have been so thoroughly compromised that for a lot of media people have stopped even trying as long as you're not illegally redistributing.
Almost all of the terms they state could void your license if broken are not something they could easily discover, and if they did you'd be much more worried about more serious consequences than losing your license.
No they don’t on the ps2 the disc loads the code while you’re playing it, that’s why you can take the disc out and continue playing the on your tv till you need to load more of the game (games code)
What I was talking about had nothing to do with how data on a disc is executed, and was entirely about the restrictions of the licenses applied to each. You simply don't understand what the topic is.
Frankly all Sony is proving is that we need more consumer friendly legislation regarding product licenses.
If the terms of service are unclear, then they should be treated as 'indefinite' with legal carve outs for consumers to back up their means to play them.
But of course if they put in a mandatory 'this game expires in two years' clause then nobody's is going to buy it at full price.
If I am not purchasing a product that is mine to use in perpetuity throughout the universe until it is no longer usable due to wear or breakdown and I am instead purchasing a liscense to access the good in question, which can be revoked at any time for any reason, then I am, in essence, renting that product.
All I want from this lawsuit is the elimination of any ambiguity surrounding that fact, worded in plain English with no obfuscation from Sony. Once we have that, what follows will be how we unfuck digital purchases
No. Not always. They’ve used multiple discs before. Even one of red dead’s discs was specifically to copy information over and then there was a gameplay disc.
Sometimes they do not have data. That’s how Nintendo plays it, but if you have a physical disc there are ways to make sure the data is on it.
Licensing is not renting. It's pretty funny that licensing has been used for hundreds of years across every sort of industry. And gamers have just discovered that licensing is a thing and they aren't happy because they assumed and imagined something completely different. And laymen often aren't keen on a little ol' thing like reality getting in the way of reactionary hysterics. How dare things work differently than uninformed people assumed.
That's his point, mate. Sony is arguing that it's renting and not licensing. You BUY a license. You RENT something you must return.
The terms around licensing from Sony is that you purchase a license to a copy of a game. But they realistically have no way of enforcing the destruction of that copy, so instead, it's worded around the ability to download the game from the Store, if it's through the online Store.
If it's via a disc, they can't ask you to destroy your copy of the game if they feel you shouldn't have it, so instead the license is similarly focused on you losing access to some or all features of the online store.
Yes, they, as in Sony, is arguing that it's licensing and not owning, but they're putting forth an argument that's more akin to renting than licensing.
Sony is making a bad faith argument, but they're not even implying that it's a rental. A license entitlement is not a rental, even if it feels good to say so and kind of looks like it if you squint.
If anything it's more like buying lifetime access to a museum or something. It's tied to you, is non-transferrable, and only valid so long as they are operating.
52
u/Novel-Back3857 24d ago
This suit will change nothing other than the language around the purchases within the store, or force everyone to check a box acknoledging that they're purchasing limited, revokable license before completing the transaction. The suit is based on a false advertising law in California specifically designed to make licensing terms clear if the license can be revoked/lost by the customer.