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.

  • danielfm123@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    ·
    8 hours ago

    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.

      • Katana314@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

      • Mark with a Z@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        4 hours ago

        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.

      • Derpgon@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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.

      • Axolotl@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 hours ago

        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

  • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    70
    ·
    17 hours ago

    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.

    • Cocodapuf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      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.

    • Nibodhika@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      40
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        49 minutes ago

        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.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-culture_movement

    • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      16 hours ago

      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.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 🇮 @pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      15 hours ago

      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.