> "Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr. Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then"

That's a very interesting defense. I wonder if it opens up a door maybe Sony would rather keep shut. If I can't own a copy of content because someone else has another copy, how does this play out for piracy? According to Sony's own argument, pirating a copy of the content is fine because others can/do still "buy" or "own" (rent/lease) it.

▲

zenoprax 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> pirating a copy of the content is fine because others can/do still "buy" or "own" (rent/lease) it.

Piracy is not theft. It is an infringement on another's right to distribute intellectual property.

This lawsuit is wasting a lot of time by not simply addressing the long-standing norm of buying a physical object which bundles the content, the license, and it many cases the copyright protection mechanisms.

Selling a used DVD is possible because the DVD contains the license — it is transferable and irrevocable by dint of its format.

Digital goods lack these distinct features but the language looks the same so people are now feeling the rug pull. Hence, the pushback against abandoning disc sales.

	▲	buran77 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Piracy is not theft. It is an infringement on another's right to distribute intellectual property. That wasn't the direction I was going towards. Sony treats digital copies as if only one can have the ownership rights attached to it. This logic can be extended to any other right. > Selling a used DVD is possible because the DVD contains the license — it is transferable and irrevocable by dint of its format. The format does not make it irrevocable, it makes the revocation impossible to enforce. The license is attached to the content of the DVD, not the plastic disc per se. This license gives me the right to read that disk and send that digital copy to my output device. It's also why I can't just copy the content to a disc I own and call it a day. So a digital copy read straight from Sony's storage and sent to my output device can very well have the same license attached to it. To be honest, I think it's a stupid defense but one that may just fly in places with the best justice money can buy. And there's a lot of money trying to buy a carte blanche to not give ownership rights to digital content, coming from every producer or distributor of such content.

▲

98codes 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

It's not a great defense if you ask me, unless they're counting on the judge not knowing the difference between owning a copy of something vs. the IP and license to sell the thing.

After all, Sony isn't selling the source code and IP for Resident Evil, they're selling a copy of the packaged software.