- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
You must log in or # to comment.
I had a PS4, with a couple of digital games, then I sold it and I didn’t have ps for a few years, recently I got a PS5 and my account didn’t exist.
Seems like Sony remove your account and your games if you don’t login in 3 years…
This feels like owning a yogurt.
Pretty sure that’s mandated by GDPR
GDPR says that data should only be kept as long as necessary for the fulfillment of what the user requested or consented to. So, I would say automatic account deletion after inactivity is a good idea for complying with the GDPR.
But you would typically implement that by sending out an e-mail before the deletion, to give the user a chance to keep their data. The GDPR does not block you from implementing that.
These services generally do warn you months in advance. Though I cannot say from experience, I think it most unlikely sony sent nothing to the user.
GDPR mandates that your data must be deleted if you demand it. GDPR does absolutely not mandate that your data must be deleted against your will.
What you may be thinking of is a clause regarding free accounts, so a digital tracker can’t remember you forever just because you never specifically requested being deleted; if the account holds some form of monetized ownership, then I don’t think the same rules apply.
Absolutely sure that is not covered by GDPR.
You have right to be forgotten - that means if you want, you can request data deletion and it has to be granted.
Another part says the service can store the data only for as long as necessary, not that it has an expiration date.
Absolutely not, the GDPR says that you have right to delete your data when you want and in a easy way and that your data may be kept as long as necessary, so what sony did was not to abid to the GDPR
Oh shit, its rossman’s consumer rights wiki! Cool to see ☺️
If they meet in any reasonable court, Sony is fucked.
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.
They’ll settle
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.
That take is nuts. Are you telling me you’ve never bought anything in your life? That’s the only way I can imagine that you could be so far off base.
It’s not a take, dude. It’s literally just what the law is.
It is not lol. You do not understand the laws you are trying to quote.
Your so wrong is impressive.
Every book on my bookshelf is copyrighted, but I own those books, OWN. I can resell them, legally, regardless of copyright. There are used bookstores that base their business around buying said copyrighted material and reselling them (Again, perfectly legal). I can’t say the same thing about my steam library, but I should be able to.
Copyright is about ip, not about the physical media, the end products.
It’s literally right there in the name - copyright
Bruh copyright is about the right to make copies… completely different thing… its in the name cmon man
No, this has never been how copyright works, if you buy a book you own that copy of the book, the author can’t go into your house and take the book back, they can’t force a new version of the book onto you, they can’t require you to proof you own the book before they allow you to read it, and they can’t stop you from reselling the book. You OWN that copy, you don’t own the IP, but you own that copy of the book.
You own the physical thing, but you’re still only licensing the copy of the work, and agreeing to that license on purchase. Lookup the first sale doctrine. Your ability to resell used copyrighted works literally hinges on a supreme court decision.
What I’m trying to get at is, this should not only aggravate us towards Sony. It should radicalize you against Copyright.
You completely misunderstand the first sale doctrine. The doctrine is that copyrighted works are only controllable on the first sale. The copyright holder can’t do anything past that.
The entirety of sales of things for all of humanity wouldn’t function if it was any other way.
You aren’t licensing anything. You are buying an item.
It won’t radicalize me against copyright because I believe people are entitled to profit from their creations, and until we live in a society beyond the need of money corporations would fuck everyone in the ass (even more so than what they do now) if there were no copyright laws. Or do you any of the mega corporations in Hollywood would give a cent in the direction of a good story of they weren’t legally required to?
In any case, that is different from what Sony is doing now. Like I said before:
- the author can’t go into your house and take the book back
- they can’t force a new version of the book onto you
- they can’t require you to proof you own the book before they allow you to read it
- they can’t stop you from reselling the book.
Those are not covered by copyright law, you have a right to do that with your books but not with your Sony games.
This steamed from the way digital downloads came about, and we agreed to trade some rights for ease of access, but companies like GoG show that it’s possible to have digital downloads while preserving some of those rights.
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.
Omggg hahaha. Sorry this was a reaction image. I dont know why it didn’t turn up
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
