posted in Technology
PlayStation Wants To Prove In Court That You Don't Own Your Digital Games
www.polygon.com/sony-digital-games-lawsuit-california/Replying to @unglueclass23@programming.dev
granted limited access to software that can be revoked at any moment.
If it is that, then it may not be called a purchase. Simple.
Replying to @Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
It should be called renting (or something similar). But then, that would likely mean an expectation of a lower price tag and they wouldn’t want that. Who would rent a game for $80? Even if the rental is a decade or longer. Probably people out there that would and currently do this.
Replying to @EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip
It should just be called License. Put that there instead of the buy button. And clearly visible the minimum expiration date for the license. Reserve the buy button for actual perpetual licenses where not having access to the licensed good is a breach of contract good for money back.
Replying to @Flower@sh.itjust.works
Licenses are a copyright concept, but this isn’t a copyright issue. You’re buying a copy of a game, and you should own the copy after the purchase (which of course, means the company who sold it to you shouldn’t be able to revoke your access at will). That’s the part that sony is apparently not willing to do. But copyright-wise, it would be a license either way, so I don’t think it’s a good idea to confuse people with only tangentially related concepts here.
Replying to @mschae@discuss.mschae23.de
licenses are a very IT central idea.
I have to buy licenses of Windows, Acrobat, etc… It lines up with what Sony is trying to say too
licenses are a very IT central idea.
No, that’s just the implementation you’re most familiar with. Licenses are a copyright idea that IT adopted and made digital. Every physical movie and game you own also comes with a license that authorizes your retail use of it, but forbids your commercial use of it. You can’t rent your copy of Shrek out to people, nor can you charge admission to people to watch Shrek at your house, nor are you allowed to make copies of your Shrek DVD and sell them, for example.
Replying to @gastroglizzy@piefed.social
Care to back that up? You wouldn’t need a license to do something that copyright laws already allow you to do on their own. For example, making additional copies for your own personal use is perfectly legal, if allowed depends on your local fair use or private copying exemption law (provided you do it without circumventing DRM, e.g. via the analog hole), even though of course the movie studio wouldn’t give you a license for that.
Of course, DRM is the real issue here, as due to anti-circumvention the movie industry controls who can legally make players for movies on disks.
You can’t rent your copy of Shrek out to people
That’s literally how Netflix got started.
Replying to @LaggyKar@programming.dev
Netflix had a different type of license they negotiated with the rights holder. They didn’t just buy DVDs retail and start mailing them around.
Replying to @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
Yes, they did, at least in some cases: forbes.com/…/netflix-is-not-facing-the-innovators…
Replying to @gastroglizzy@piefed.social
How do libraries work then? Do they just go fuck the copyright law lol here are some DVDs? That said not used one for digital media in over 2 decades.
Should use ours more. Been in the cafe a few times and have looked at some books while inside though. Might be an idea to check out the cooking books and take some pictures/notes of interesting sounding recipes to try.
Replying to @mschae@discuss.mschae23.de
copyright(n.) c. 1729, “the exclusive right to make and sell copies of an intellectual production,”
license(v.) c. 1400, “grant formal authorization to do what would be illegal to do without it,”
Yeah… I don’t think you are right about that…
Replying to @atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
I don’t really see what that has to do with what I said? Unless you are saying that licenses exist for other things than copyright (in response to “licenses are a copyright concept”). That’s definitely true, I oversimplified to make my point, but I’m also pretty sure that copyright licenses are the only kind of license that are relevant here in the first place.
Replying to @mschae@discuss.mschae23.de
Copyrights are a type of license not the other way around.
Replying to @atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
Copyrights are rights. A license grants others (parts of) that right. A copyright isn’t a license.