cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/51388116
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.
I really, really hope this backfires. They are arguing in public about how we should not have rights to the games they offer us and somehow don’t care how bad the optics look? I swear I think I am done with Sony and I have been with them since the 90s. They need consequences for trying to treat its consumers with such disregard. At least most companies try to hide it behind closed doors.
Sonys been evil as fuck for decades dude, remember when 20 years ago they hid rootkits in their cds for drm protection.
They only looked good a few years ago because Microsoft was racing them to the bottom with the early Xbox One drama.
That whole thing was absolutely fucking nuts.
Have you seen the source? They were fucking script kiddies.
Absolutely, I guess I was more forgiving back then. Plus this feels way more agressive and covers everybody. I think it’s more the fact that it’s in the public eye and they don’t care at all which is making it worse to me.
The article is sensationalized a bit. They’re not arguing you shouldn’t have rights. They already state that clearly in their terms of service. They’re arguing they disclose this fact adequately under California’s disclosure laws.
California law forbids companies selling a licence to access content from using the words “buy” or “purchase” unless they make it clear to “a reasonable consumer” that what they’re buying is a licence to access and not “unrestricted ownership”.
Sony is facing a lawsuit claiming they’re not following this law. Their sales pages use “buy” and “purchase” but don’t make it clear they’re selling licences.
Sony is countering by saying it’s clearly stated in the first paragraph of their terms of service. If that isn’t enough, they also argue a “reasonable consumer” would inherently know they’re not buying “unrestricted ownership” of Sony’s multiplayer games since multiplayer implies they’re selling to multiple people and multiple people can’t all have “unrestricted ownership” of the same product.
In law, “reasonable person” is usually a much higher standard than the average person. Even if the average person doesn’t understand licences and ownership, a “reasonable person” does. Its why Fox won its defamation case where they argued that no “reasonable person” would assume Tucker Carleson’s statements were factual.
A lot of “reasonable consumers” got a nasty shock when Sony revoked their licences to content that they “purchased”. That’s really the true problem here. Nobody hates Steam for using a similar system, because they never revoke licences. I can even still re-download and play games that have been de-listed or taken down. Disappearing purchases is a big problem, it’s completely lost value for the consumer and free money for the business. One step removed from a scam.
Very scummy, and a problem, but also not what the lawsuit is about. It’s about whether or not Sony makes it clear purchases come with restrictions.
Steam shows a disclaimer to California residents at checkout. Sony is basically arguing they don’t need to do that because it’s already obvious.