TerryLaze What does any of that matter????? From the moment that they state that "the software is licensed to you ,not sold" any reference to purchase/buy/own and so on, on any part of their site or PR material, is a reference to said license. Yes, courts read contracts as a whole and prioritize the overall substance and intent of the agreement over isolated shorthand terms. When the main clauses of an agreement clearly establish a license—such as explicitly retaining ownership and granting only limited usage rights—the incidental use of words like "purchase," "sale," "buy," or "owner" does not automatically transform the contract into a sale of goods or property. Courts generally view these terms as commercial shorthand meant for convenience or simplicity, provided the broader context eliminates ambiguity. Key Legal Principles The "Four Corners" Rule: Courts evaluate the entire document to determine intent, rather than isolating specific words or phrases. Substance Over Form: The legal effect of a contract is governed by its actual operation and rights granted, not by the labels used by the parties. Federal Precedent (Software & IP): In cases involving digital assets or software, federal courts (such as the U.S. Ninth Circuit in Vernor v. Autodesk ) have long held that if a user is restricted from transferring the asset and faces notable usage limitations, the transaction is a license, not a sale , regardless of "buy now" button text or shorthand terminology. Sure, California can force them to change the buy button into saying license instead but that's a different story. Reply
VizzieTheViz The rub is in the license being revocable whenever it suits Sony. That’s not acceptable. If they want to sell me a license like that AND use their right to make games unplayable then they’ll have to adjust prices WAY down (and sell me a PlayStation first). Reply
nrdwka TerryLaze said: What does any of that matter????? From the moment that they state that "the software is licensed to you ,not sold" any reference to purchase/buy/own and so on, on any part of their site or PR material, is a reference to said license. Yes, courts read contracts as a whole and prioritize the overall substance and intent of the agreement over isolated shorthand terms. When the main clauses of an agreement clearly establish a license—such as explicitly retaining ownership and granting only limited usage rights—the incidental use of words like "purchase," "sale," "buy," or "owner" does not automatically transform the contract into a sale of goods or property. Courts generally view these terms as commercial shorthand meant for convenience or simplicity, provided the broader context eliminates ambiguity. Sure, California can force them to change the buy button into saying license instead but that's a different story. Because words are some meaning. And small text not always is expected to be read and legal bound. cf. EULA Reply
Concerned Liberty TerryLaze said: What does any of that matter????? From the moment that they state that "the software is licensed to you ,not sold" any reference to purchase/buy/own and so on, on any part of their site or PR material, is a reference to said license. Sure, California can force them to change the buy button into saying license instead but that's a different story. You appear to have missed the part about, "no reasonable consumer" would think they are getting more than a revocable license. The Consumer Rights Wiki is pointing out that Sony is purposely misleading "reasonable consumers" to conclude that they have made a purchase that bestows perpetual access to the content. This is a very specific legal argument that Sony is making and their own words are coming back to bite them. Reply
Shugdj I hope the plaintiffs don’t just take the money and run like so many have. This is a landmark case. With all the sites that offer “purchase” yet have clearly manipulated the media/get rid of due to licensing agreements and don’t offer refunds for it; we as consumers need them to step up. Look at Amazon that wants to be a one stop shop, yet doesn’t even offer the full seasons of Dr. Who and many shows are the tv version and not the dvd version, then once they don’t want to pay up to retain rights, we are out of our monies. Literally just got an alert from them that they are offering podcasts, nty, tracking our mentions of them across the board. They track the data, use it against us to manipulate into purchase/rental, but don’t live up to true ownership rights. Guess we gave them way too much power. How many people missing those malls they let fall to pieces now? Not me, lol but might be if Sony overlords manage to pay off these involved in the suit and keep being giant butts. Reply
ezst036 VizzieTheViz said: The rub is in the license being revocable whenever it suits Sony. That’s not acceptable. Correct. Sony needs to man up and start using the phrase permanent license or perpetual license and be explicit about it that the license is non-revocable. Both in and out of the small print. They want to be digital then this is the price they should have to pay to get digital. Reply
Shugdj VizzieTheViz said: The rub is in the license being revocable whenever it suits Sony. That’s not acceptable. If they want to sell me a license like that AND use their right to make games unplayable then they’ll have to adjust prices WAY down (and sell me a PlayStation first). Truth, and A PlayStation that they made very ugly and used the demand against the consumers. Upped the prices and allowed unlimited purchases so crims could buy 200 and then resell for astronomical prices. People fighting, literally, for them. Then say, well you can buy the box but nothing digital purchased and retained in the memory isn’t yours. Can’t burn it either. Omg the good ol days. Download and burn the copies as needed…never again. Reply
ejolson The way I see it, young people listen to popular music and play video games. Many years later that same music and those same games bring back amazing memories and feelings from the past. When some company decides it's more profitable to cancel the license, the result cuts off an important connection people have with their personal histories. I'd say it's diabolical, except this doesn't quite live up to the standards of the Sony rootkit scandal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_BMG_copy_protection_rootkit_scandal Reply
Key considerations
- Investor positioning can change fast
- Volatility remains possible near catalysts
- Macro rates and liquidity can dominate flows
Reference reading
- https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/playstation/SPONSORED_LINK_URL
- https://www.tomshardware.com/video-games/playstation/consumer-rights-wiki-documents-at-least-44-instances-in-which-sony-says-you-own-your-games-project-is-direct-assault-on-sonys-claim-in-recent-ownership-lawsuit#main
- https://www.tomshardware.com/membership
- Boots on the Ground: ‘WARDOGS’ Goes All Out on GeForce NOW at Early-Access Launch
- Save 20% on this 144-in-1 screwdriver set, perfect for hobbyists and PC builders under $40 — epic starter toolkit ships with electric and precision drivers, alo
- Self-taught tinkerer demos working room-sized Cold War-era supercomputer with vacuum tubes — takes 15 minutes to warm up and smells like burning dust, 8-bit des
- Old MacBook uses a mirror, webcam, and AI agent to code its own AMD GPU drivers — 'agent-first' Omarchy Linux debugs itself, AI can check its own progress on sc
- NVIDIA to Acquire Hugging Face
Informational only. No financial advice. Do your own research.