Oh my god, Sony. Fuck off.

What a strawman argument. No one has ever tried to argue that.

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.

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.

That whole thing was absolutely fucking nuts.

Have you seen the source? They were fucking script kiddies.

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.

If not owned, why ownership priced?

If not owned, shouldda said “rent”.

And come with a fixed rental period/duration listed upfront. And pricing to match

“Add to cart” “Purchase”

No, you didn’t purchase it.

Sony used to sell physical LP’s and CD’s.

“we only manufactured one! When you bought it, we no longer owned it!”

There’s no way anybody is stupid enough to believe I’m going to purchase anything Sony now.

I’m certainly not stupid enough to own any Sony games.

Well according to Sony, you don’t own any even if you paid for them on their storefront.

If I were a judge, and someone presented a case so fucking stupid, I would dismiss the case with prejudice.

Lawyers have to at least pretend to do their jobs.

There’s a reason everyone says they’re going to purchase a copy of a game. No one ever thinks they are buying the master and suddenly owns the IP. Everyone at Sony has rocks for brains.

Sleazy lawyers expect the judge to have rocks for brains and buy this argument. They’re relying on the ignorance of digital goods and how they work. I hope they didn’t forget that neat word from the last corpo scam before AI, non-fungible. Every copy is indistinguishable from all the other copies. If you can sell infinite copies at no cost, then people should be able to buy a copy and keep it in a working state forever. Fuck DRM.

Why do they use terms like “Buy”, and “Purchase”, then?

Just a little gamer jargon. Everyone knows what’s up

The same reason your fruit punch is “made with 100% real fruit juice”

In other words, Sony’s lawyers are arguing that if you truly own your digital games, only one copy of GTA 6 could ever be sold. “Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr. Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then,” the filing says.

OK, so by that logic if only one copy exists and that copy is rented to Jason Mendoza, then Sony shouldn’t be able to rent it to Edward Heycock because the one copy is already in use by Mendoza.

It really should work that way then, instead of letting them have their cake and eat it too. They and others have fought hard to make that logic work to their own ends. When publishers can enforce artificial scarcity of digital goods upon public libraries, like limiting the number of active e-book loans at any time, those same publishers should find themselves bleeding on the other edge of that sword. But since corporations are “persons,” the large ones belonging to that class of untouchables, it’s “rules for thee, but not for me” as always.

🎶It’s fun to violate the D M C A🎶
🎶It’s fun to violate the D M C A🎶
🎶They want everyone, to not own their own stuff🎶
🎶You can just pirate it in that case🎶
🎶It’s fun to violate the D M C A🎶
🎶It’s fun to violate the D M C A🎶
🎶You get games to play, and movies to view🎶
🎶You can do what ever you feel🎶

Please tell me this is an actual song somebody made

Not the same lyrics, but in the same vein: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQnF1BBBtXs

That lawyer is an idiot. He’s arguing that Sony willfully double dipped n times after the first sale of each and every digital title.

As if those shit-for-morals lawyers did not know or understand the difference between foreground and background rights.

If this logic were true, then pirating a game couldn’t be theft because the original owner still has possession of it.

I hope that backfires in their face.

Its not theft because nothing is being stolen, only a copy being made. Their take on this is all the more reason to pirate. I’ll be damned if Im paying $80-$100 to “rent” a game so they can take it from me when they lose the license. Which they’ve been doing alot of recently.

Piracy has never been tried successfully as theft, because it does not deprive the original owner of their lawful copy. It has always been tried as Copyright Infringement.

Modern Piracy is never theft.

I always remember what Sony did to SWG. The PlayStation interface has always been blazing hot garbage too. I have never had the impression they care much about consumers.

I mean, I bought the only peanut butter ever made. There was only one, I bought it.

So by that logic, Sony also don’t own the games and therefore have nothing to sell.

I don’t believe anyone owns media. I believe “buying media” should provide, baring illegal action on the buyers part, an irrevocable license to the media. Additionally, if the media is only available online, the media needs to be provided for the expected lifetime of the buyer.

You but a “copy of the game”, not the entire IP. You own that individual copy.

Do they think a physical book is a license, too?