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

271–280 of 284 posts

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#271

Post by ncr100 »

DrBazza wrote: post #60
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…

Well, in the UK under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, with goods, you're entitled to refund, a repair, or a replacement. We're not good at class actions in the UK, so it's down to the individual, but if a one time payment for a game that was physical media, isn't a 'good', what is it? I'll post the google/ai summary, but this mostly it: Your Main Rights by Timeframe Within 30 Days: You have the right to reject the item…

Nice - I live in the USA, for reference.

We don't have that, here. We have "Freedom" .. which I am suspecting is redefined to mean "kakistocracy".

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#272

Post by b112 »

skrellm wrote: post #264
b112 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Thanks. I'm in Quebec, and there are very strong protections here, consumer wise.

But it's Napoleonic civil code, so sometimes things don't work out as my common law brain thinks.

(It'll be interesting to read your California link.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#273

Post by ncr100 »

strictnein wrote: post #57
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…

Redefining common words is the issue here. > If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom society's Society's "norms" around buying is that you own the thing you buy, which is why we have different words for buy, lease, rent, etc. Society's norms around theft is that you have taken something from someone else and they no longer have access to it. So…

I get it. And the point I failed to make is they did redefine it via a normal process of contract.

A bit of pedantry:

> Sony is the one with the different definition

Yes, agreed.

And to build on that, Sony is using a normal legal vehicle, a contract to make that different definition. And customers of Sony are entering into contract .. which is very normal thing for customers to do when engaging in business relationships with businesses.

> "That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is"

Yep.

To reinforce my yep, (tiredly - sorry but I am) - The yoke of bureaucracy and this complex economy we live in also rests upon us, the citizens. It is a burden - and an increasing risk as AI is unleashed into more and more of our systems, digital AND legal / policy / social. (AI has "infinite" memory so it can use circumlocution, taking advantage of overly complex and distracting

Looping back:

I could have said "it suuuuucks, f' the man, man!" as I do hold that view. However we are here, with legal contracts capable of imposing these broad and uncomfortable relationship constraints (eg between customer & business).

SO the question, in my mind, is HOW are we going to understand WHAT we want society to look like, as presently and into the future an INHUMANLY complex set of rules is capable of limiting our expressive existence, leading reasonably to general dissatisfaction in life?

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#274

Post by red-iron-pine »

inigyou wrote: post #183
jonhohle wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then maybe is should be forced to say: “Buy revocable license” and require the user to answer randomized multiple choice questions regarding the terms of the license that act in opposition to the purchaser. Collect metrics on wrong answers and if greater than say, 15% of people can’t determine what they are actually handing over money for, fine and require additional clarity. Or, just flip the tables and say the hist…

Revocable is an obscure word to normal people. It should say temporary.

temporary implies it is temporal -- there is a time limit.

revokable means that it's fine until the evil megacorp says it isn't.

to steal from an earlier thread -- my hunting license is temporary: I know it is only good for this year. No ambiguity there, no surprises, and everyone agreed on this upfront.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#275

Post by ncr100 »

Lord-Jobo wrote: post #93
strictnein wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Redefining common words is the issue here. > If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom society's Society's "norms" around buying is that you own the thing you buy, which is why we have different words for buy, lease, rent, etc. Society's norms around theft is that you have taken something from someone else and they no longer have access to it. So…

Yes, if your transaction contract redefines very common well understood words like “buy” it honestly should be nullified in the eyes of the law. It’s an inherently deceptive practice. Want to create new definitions for new words or phrases? Totally fine, but then Sony would need to replace the “buy” button with “blease” or “blent” or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has been play…

I disagree that it's "inherently deceptive". That claim deserve justification IMO.

It's an obtuse-feeling abstraction.

> ".. or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has .."

Yep - I agree with the sentiment.

Reality is, we have a set of systems in society capable of over-complicating (from a HUMAN sense) life, which reasonably can be seen to make life unpleasant for the less-enfranchised populations - those without a personal lawyer to review every action they take in life...e.g you and me.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#276

Post by ncr100 »

everyone wrote: post #25
epicureanideal wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They shouldn’t be able to redefine common terms when closer terms like lease or license are available. It’s misleading.

It's also totally illegal in many countries.. you can write whatever nonsense you want on an eula, but it will be about as useful as toilet paper in court.

Additionally e.g. the UK has right-to-repair which may influence this subject:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49552588 (from elsewhere in this discussion).

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#277

Post by ncr100 »

epicureanideal wrote: post #20
ncr100 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. "buy" and "purchase" are redefined in the EULA

They shouldn’t be able to redefine common terms when closer terms like lease or license are available. It’s misleading.

Agreed - and with AI being able to easily navigate arbitrarily complex and humanly-misleading systems, average humans (without a personal lawyer always on retainer) are at an increasing disadvantage in society.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#278

Post by ncr100 »

loconut wrote: post #50
ncr100 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. "buy" and "purchase" are redefined in the EULA

I wonder if said EULA can also help me make sense of my diceware password.

Here is the EULA: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-service/

After reviewing it - idk? It's too complex for me to understand .. in my naivety!

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#279

Post by s1artibartfast »

Telaneo wrote: post #251
s1artibartfast wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Licenses are commonly understood to have variable duration, as specified by the license. I get that people want to be able to purchase games forever, but this linguistic argument seems tortured concern trolling. maybe Im wrong, but are there even people confused by what they are getting when they pay for a modern online game? It seems like the bigger issues is people know, but dont like those terms. There is some str…

I'd be very surprised if the average buyer of Call of Shooty was aware that their game could be taken away from them (for reasons (or lack thereof) other than maybe getting their account banned for cheating). I'd also be fairly surprised if that average buyer cared all that much. For many the life cycle of any random game is short enough that it doesn't matter whether or not it gets revoked, just so long as that's fa…

I think the average buyer of a online multiplayer game is loosely aware that the company could stop hosting it. Probably less aware that their single player content could disappear.

I personally think it is hard to mobilize people because the overwhelming majority simply dont care. If they did, yes, they could vote with their wallets. Nobody will die without Call of Shooty 10.

We are in this weird twilight zone where some people say they dont like products, but keep buying them.

Re: Sony makes bold claim about game ownership

#280

Post by scheeseman486 »

dcow wrote: post #257
scheeseman486 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's easy to get lost in arguments where analogies are used. They're almost always terrible and are the death of nuance and detail. Fuck car analogies, a car isn't a video game console. Sony host a massive, massive marketplace. That's where their monopoly lies, they have end to end control over distribution of not only their games, but anyone else who chooses to publish on the platform, in addition to control over ho…

If as a society we want to create an information age bill of rights and (1) protect hardware ownership and right to root (without exploits), (2) require platform marketplace neutrality, and (3) require digital intellectual property be distributed under lifetime irrevocable and transferable licenses, then I’d happily sign my name, and not least because you’re solving the problem at the core. One can dream.

Now ya' talkin'
Post reply on HN