The detailed sourcing directly attacks Sony’s legal claim that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to own their digital purchases on the PlayStation Store.
If they meet in any reasonable court, Sony is fucked.
They’ll settle
So Sony isn’t fucked then.
Well, any person who has made a PSN account in the past 15 years is bound by arbitration. An arbiter that Sony pays. An arbiter that will not get paid again if they rule against Sony.
So… probably not reasonable.
Forced arbitration provisions have been thrown out before. So have contract clauses that ban class actions.
A company can put whatever they want in their agreements, whether it is enforceable is a completely different story, and things are tossed out by courts all the time.
It’s kind of funny how everyone is up in arms about this now (and for good reasons), when like, that’s how copyright has always worked? You don’t own anything that’s copyrighted, except for what you yourself create and get a copy-monopoly on.
You don’t own the IP rights to the work but you can own a copy of it to do as you wish with. Unless of course you are merely renting a copy or purchasing a license to use that copy temporarily. That’s the difference being discussed here, nobody in their right mind thinks buying super mario 64 means you own mario the concept.
Like, you are kinda right in one way, but there’s a difference between owning the intellectual property vs owning a thing.
It should be understood by most people that they are not buying the IP. They do, however, expect to own the product they paid for.
The company is trying to equate owning the IP to owning every copy of the product they sell with the right to revoke your access to the thing you bought and not have to give you your money back. That is their argument. This is some bullshit, and everyone knows it.
Do you have any proof for that?
Understandable. Have a nice day.
Did you forget to type something?
I don’t think they actually owned the letters they typed.
Sony must’ve revoked their license
