but… you can own a physical item without ownership of all IP on it. that argument makes no sense. By that same logic wouldn’t second party stores (such as sony… since they don’t own every game they sell…) also not own the IP, so therefore wouldn’t be authorized to actually sell said IP via the licenses?
but… you can own a physical item without ownership of all IP on it
The lawsuit pertains to the sale of digital goods. Specifically, California’s law requiring it to be made obvious to a “reasonable consumer” that they are buying a licence to access a digital good and not buying “unrestricted ownership”.
Sony is arguing a “reasonable consumer” would know it’s impossible to have “unrestricted ownership” of an online multiplayer game. They also state it’s a licence in their terms of service, but that might be too hidden to adhere to California’s law.
“unrestricted ownership” of an online multiplayer game.
I personally don’t see why that would be unreasonable. Yea it’s multiplayer but, you buy a product expecting to be able to use said product, even if it’s multiplayer. I can somewhat understand the argument of breaking online TOS or something and being banned but… I don’t get the argument that you can’t own your games you have. There’s no reason that a storefront in general would do that. Imagine the concept on that applied to any other industry. “Yea so the repo man is here for your couch, yea I know you paid for it in full 12 years ago but, the furniture supplier no longer supports that model so we are removing it”. Most people would expect the same out of their digital products. I’ll be curious to see what direction that goes.
I don’t get the argument that you can’t own your games you have
That’s not what the lawsuit is about. It’s about whether or not Sony is clearly disclosing to California residents that Sony is selling a licence to play a game and not “unrestricted ownership”.
Sony is saying it’s clear they are selling licences. As you said, you’d assume breaking ToS gets you banned. That means you assume your purchase comes with restrictions. That’s exactly Sony’s argument. They don’t need a flashing sign on their store page telling you the purchase comes with access and usage restrictions because you already know it does.
Seems like Sony is right in the case of California then, even though it unsettles me that consumers aren’t considered to own the video game as an actual copy of a computer programme woth which they can do whatever they like.
By that same logic wouldn’t second party stores (such as sony… since they don’t own every game they sell…) also not own the IP, so therefore wouldn’t be authorized to actually sell said IP via the licenses?
They have agreements to sell individual licenses via their store…
Often ridiculously lucrative agreements, like 30% of the sale price lucrative.
If they didn’t have that deal, yes, they’d be breaking the law.
Did you really not know the difference between an end user and a storefront?
but… you can own a physical item without ownership of all IP on it. that argument makes no sense. By that same logic wouldn’t second party stores (such as sony… since they don’t own every game they sell…) also not own the IP, so therefore wouldn’t be authorized to actually sell said IP via the licenses?
Absurd argument.
The lawsuit pertains to the sale of digital goods. Specifically, California’s law requiring it to be made obvious to a “reasonable consumer” that they are buying a licence to access a digital good and not buying “unrestricted ownership”.
Sony is arguing a “reasonable consumer” would know it’s impossible to have “unrestricted ownership” of an online multiplayer game. They also state it’s a licence in their terms of service, but that might be too hidden to adhere to California’s law.
I personally don’t see why that would be unreasonable. Yea it’s multiplayer but, you buy a product expecting to be able to use said product, even if it’s multiplayer. I can somewhat understand the argument of breaking online TOS or something and being banned but… I don’t get the argument that you can’t own your games you have. There’s no reason that a storefront in general would do that. Imagine the concept on that applied to any other industry. “Yea so the repo man is here for your couch, yea I know you paid for it in full 12 years ago but, the furniture supplier no longer supports that model so we are removing it”. Most people would expect the same out of their digital products. I’ll be curious to see what direction that goes.
That’s not what the lawsuit is about. It’s about whether or not Sony is clearly disclosing to California residents that Sony is selling a licence to play a game and not “unrestricted ownership”.
Sony is saying it’s clear they are selling licences. As you said, you’d assume breaking ToS gets you banned. That means you assume your purchase comes with restrictions. That’s exactly Sony’s argument. They don’t need a flashing sign on their store page telling you the purchase comes with access and usage restrictions because you already know it does.
Seems like Sony is right in the case of California then, even though it unsettles me that consumers aren’t considered to own the video game as an actual copy of a computer programme woth which they can do whatever they like.
Did they forget about books, board games, figures, posters, DVDs etc…
They have agreements to sell individual licenses via their store…
Often ridiculously lucrative agreements, like 30% of the sale price lucrative.
If they didn’t have that deal, yes, they’d be breaking the law.
Did you really not know the difference between an end user and a storefront?
for purchased goods from a store you can do significantly more with than most commercially licensed software