Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

aginggamer.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#261

Post by Timon3 »

dcow wrote: post #258
ndriscoll wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't back up your encrypted bits on one machine and use them on another without constant permission from Sony though. Other hardware doesn't have the keys to decrypt them (actually this is it's own issue: it's obviously a very monopolistic, anticompetitive move that you can't run a PS5 game on a commodity PC because of their encryption). As far as I know, Valve's "DRM" just calls into a dll that asks Steam wheth…

You can’t back up your games on one PC and use them on another without constant permission from Value either. It’s the same and that is all I’m trying to point out. DRM is a red herring, the real problem is the phone home always online bullshit. Both Valve and Sony run a completely legal video game platform service. There are minor differences here and there, of course… but this is 100% a general intellectual propert…

A large number of games on Steam don't use any DRM, you can just copy the files and use them wherever you want. So no, it's not the same.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#262

Post by red_admiral »

AgingGamer wrote: post #171
red_admiral wrote: post #55

Sony is correct here? If I buy a CD or a cassette or a record, I own the physical media but I only have a licence to the music it contains - not the ownership, and not the copyright. Whether I can play that music as a DJ at an event or on the radio, or remix it as a backing track for another song I'm creating and so on, depends on licencing laws and royalty payments. That was true well before the internet, and it's w…

Yes, Sony can revoke a license. It is right in the terms of the license. We own nothing but the right to access the game so long as the rights holder chooses to permit it. This means I could buy a game on Tuesday and the rights holder could render it unplayable on Wednesday with no recourse. The "Buy" versus "License" question doesn't really resolve this. Sony is right in one sense that we all know we are licensing.…

In the UK at least, consumer contracts have to be "fair", determined as necessary in a court of law: https://www.gov.uk/unfair-terms-in-sales-contracts/unfair-co...

Making the game unplayable on Wednesday might not impress a judge.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#263

Post by red_admiral »

yakz wrote: post #67
red_admiral wrote: post #55

Sony is correct here? If I buy a CD or a cassette or a record, I own the physical media but I only have a licence to the music it contains - not the ownership, and not the copyright. Whether I can play that music as a DJ at an event or on the radio, or remix it as a backing track for another song I'm creating and so on, depends on licencing laws and royalty payments. That was true well before the internet, and it's w…

The important bit is that you can sell the CD or cassette or record.

Which would still apply if the game were sold on a CD-ROM, but needed an internet connection to Sony's licence servers to run. The important bit is that once you bought a music CD, no-one can stop you from playing it?

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#264

Post by skrellm »

b112 wrote: post #217
skrellm wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Class action civil case should still be doable? Nope, because there's a stance in EULA's footnote (with extremely small letters) that you give up your rights to class action civil case.

So you've verified this? In this specific case? Or are you just being a wise guy. Regardless, these sorts of things have been fought before, over and over. Often, courts don't care about an EULA when wrongful action has been taken. The jurisdiction matters too, of course.

> So you've verified this?

Yes, verified. I would not have said it otherwise.

https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/

> 14.5. Class Action Waiver. > YOU AND THE SONY ENTITY WITH WHICH YOU HAVE A DISPUTE AGREE THAT ARBITRATION WILL BE CONDUCTED ONLY ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS AND NOT IN A CLASS OR REPRESENTATIVE ACTION [...]

> Regardless, these sorts of things have been fought before, over and over.

This specific case BTW: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.47...

I'm no lawyer, but IMHO they probably will reply that Sony has indeed violated CA. AB 2426 (effective since 01-jan-2025) and that Sony illegally tried to restrict customer rights in the first place, as per McGill v. Citibank https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/2017/s...

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#265

Post by embedding-shape »

jdiff wrote: post #247
embedding-shape wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but that's a very different type of license compared to a hunting license, driver license or similar stuff, you know, the context.

Yeah. But we're talking about software licenses here. It was more weird hunting and drivers licenses ever got brought up.

> It was more weird hunting and drivers licenses ever got brought up

Agreed! :)

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#266

Post by dcow »

Timon3 wrote: post #261
dcow wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t back up your games on one PC and use them on another without constant permission from Value either. It’s the same and that is all I’m trying to point out. DRM is a red herring, the real problem is the phone home always online bullshit. Both Valve and Sony run a completely legal video game platform service. There are minor differences here and there, of course… but this is 100% a general intellectual propert…

A large number of games on Steam don't use any DRM, you can just copy the files and use them wherever you want. So no, it's not the same.

Let's put the actual numbers in front of people: 1,924 out of 43,179 games, or 4.4%, as of today (according to PCGamingWiki) are DRM free.

The vast majority check whether you've purchased the game at runtime. If you stick to only indie games and the one off AA or AAA with no license check on Steam then sure thou-art-holier.

I think the argument is more precisely made by saying: on Steam, while the platform supports DRM, the decision is up to the publisher whether or not a game will use it and at least that provides the option for consumers to speak with their wallet and play only DRM free games. On Playstation it's all or nothing, you have to reject the entire platform/ecosystem if you want to avoid DRM.

At large, the problem still remains that our society allows DRM in the first place and if people want to avoid it then they need to be principled activists.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#267

Post by upboundspiral »

dataflow wrote: post #74
Topology1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually state law in CA. People reported Sony to California's Attorney General, who basically said they weren't going to do anything about it. Unfortunately the law is only as useful as its enforcement.

What was their rationale for doing nothing?

To clarify:

The attorney general said they wouldn't be pressing charges, and said that private individuals would need to press charges themselves. Source: https://youtu.be/Wst4wPBH-Cg

It seems that now some individuals have pressed charges against Sony.

The problem is that Sony thinks that rule of law is for chumps and has forced arbitration (waiving your right to go to court) unless you opt out by mail or soemthing within 30 days hidden in the modern Iliad terms of service.

So in theory this case could get thrown out due to Sony legally taking away your right to a fair trial.

And if you read the proceedings Sony says that "consumers in the digital age have no expectation of ownership when they buy digital products". Goes to show you the respect some modern companies have for people.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#268

Post by dcow »

ethin wrote: post #229
stronglikedan wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO the better thing is to force these companies to dump this mindset IMO this is a strictly idealistic view in a world where only a very small vocal minority actually seems to care. The vast majority of people will continue to reward these companies with their wallets, so they have no incentive to change course.

How is this idealistic? This is how digital information and copyright (if it is to apply to digital information) needs to work. It is absolutely absurd that I can buy something from you, but you can then turn around and say "well actually you just leased a license from me" and you then can break into my digital home and steel (ahem, "repossess") the digital copy for yourself without my consent. My logic is quite simp…

> Obviously the general populous won't care about this, but it is something we should be striving for

Hence idealistic

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#269

Post by ncr100 »

kstrauser wrote: post #190
ncr100 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my view this is faulty logic -- Buying in this case is "buying", and is a redefined term inside the legal contract which you choose to agree to when Sony accepts your money for a license to access their published video games, and so, it does not mean buying in the mundane sense of physical goods. I would suggest this workaround: If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a differen…

> the legal contract which you choose to agree to when Sony accepts your money for a license Tell me more about this nonexistent contract I have with Sony.

Sure, https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-march-2... - see section 10.1.

For part of the above sentence ... "it" is existent, not nonexistent.

And about the ".. I have .." part of the comment you wrote, @kstrauser, by using their service a person must agree to their contract.

So, if you, per-se, don't use their service, then you haven't entered into the (existent) contract with Sony!

Here is the segment:

> 10.1. All intellectual property rights subsisting in the Content, including all software, data, services, and other content subsisting in or used in connection with our Services, the Online ID and access to content and hardware used in connection with our Services belong to SIE, its affiliates, and its licensors. Use of the terms "own," "ownership", "purchase," "sale," "sold," "sell," "rent" or "buy" in this Agreement or in connection with the Content does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership of any content, data or software or any intellectual property rights from SIE, its affiliates, or its licensors to any user or third party.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#270

Post by hn_submit »

Danox wrote: post #95
hn_submit wrote: post #66

This statement could do Sony in. Gamers will refuse to buy a PS6 if there's not an ironclad guarantee that they own the games they purchase, be it digital or disc form. And since gaming is the only profit center that's holding Sony above water I see the company disappearing in a couple of years. I foresee another "gaming winter" like we had in the 1980's. Maybe a decade from now another gaming platform will arise, mo…

Microsoft gaming division i.e. the Xbox will disappear before Sony goes anywhere. Same thing goes from Nintendo every year people/analysts insist that both those companies are in trouble and will die off because of the way they do business but here they are still successful and the main reason, they’re successful is that they concentrate on gameplay in comparison to their competition.

Nintendo will be around for some time, because they focus on gameplay, not hardware specs and trillions of triangles per second.

However, there's only so many sequels of Mario Kart and Mario World you can come up with. I mean, there has to be a time when people get bored with it, doesn't there? OTOH I've been saying that for almost thirty years now (I still own a Nintendo 64).

Post reply on HN