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 why Wham! get a huge boost in royalties every December whenever a radio station plays Last Christmas.

A separate question is whether Sony can _revoke_ a licence and delete the game off your device again.

▲

yakz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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

	▲	frollogaston 19 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes. Not just practically speaking, but legally, you own the disc.
	▲	Joel_Mckay 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		True, but no additional rights to distribute replicas of the copyrighted music and composer works. Note, if a band does a cover of a popular song, the original music composer rights also don't magically transfer because someone sang a slightly different version. Sony may not be technically breaking any rules, if they disclosed the terms of the copyright are revocable... and not perpetual in the terms of sale. Still a douche move to rip off kids, and burned a lot goodwill with consumers. =3

▲

0xcde4c3db 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not a copyright lawyer, but my understanding is that you do not own a license when you buy a CD or cassette, you own a copy (strictly speaking, a "phonorecord" in US law). Copyright doesn't regulate the sorts of typical uses that the owner of a copy would engage in, so a license is not required. When you see those warnings on VHS/DVD/Blu-ray that they're licensed only for private home viewing, what they're telling you is that you don't have a license to do anything controlled by copyright such as broadcasting, publicly exhibiting, or reproducing it.

Software is significantly more complicated and gets into issues of physical permanence/transience and specific exemptions/limitations to normal copyright law (see e.g. 17 USC 117).

▲

barnabee 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If I buy a game - i.e. I am on a store page title "Game Name" not "Limited Revokable License for Game Name", and I click "buy", then I expect to own a copy of the game or the right to a copy of the game (in perpetuity), not a limited revokable license to play the game.

▲

tiahura 2 hours ago | parent [-]

In the US adults are expected to read what they agree to. If they don’t, it’s generally their problem.

▲

Kinrany 2 hours ago | parent [-]

In the rest of the civilized world adults are expected to have common sense and be truthful when it comes to formal transactions.

	▲	tiahura an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Good point. Reading before you sign should be common sense regardless of what country you're in. And, if you don't agree with the terms, you shouldn't click "I Agree."

▲

AgingGamer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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. What needs protection, probably requiring new or revised laws, is some sort of consumer right to get value out of a game license before the vendor renders it unplayable.

▲

nalekberov 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The difference is that no license holder can force you to give them back. You. Actually. Own. Them.

You might think, like, you've had some eureka moment, but it's all corporate BS.