this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2026
334 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

87469 readers
3319 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
334
Sony Reminds PS Users They Don't Own Digital Games (games.gg)
submitted 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) by themachinestops@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/technology@lemmy.world
52 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

The relevant section is blunt. "The Software is licensed to you, not sold," the EULA states. "You are granted a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, and personal license to play or use the Software for your private, non-commercial use on the system or device it was intended for."

The terms also restrict renting, modifying, or obtaining games through unauthorised means. Nothing in there is new, technically. Sony's EULA has always said this. The timing is what makes it land differently right now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] VonReposti@feddit.dk 7 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

EU is very adamant that you can only present contractual terms before entering an agreement (purchase) not after. All those EULAs showing up in the game before you are shown the main menu are void in EU.

If the EULA is instead embedded in the purchase flow with an "I agree" checkbox then the UsedSoft vs. Oracle case is likely still precedence to argue that you own the copy. Reason is that the purchase flow uses the "Buy" terminology and nowhere outside of the EULA it mentions rental/lease/limited/etc. This would breach the "reasonable consumer expectations" as the storefront didn't make it clear in their purchase experience that it was only a limited license you obtained and that a normal consumer doesn't expect "limited" when reading "Buy". This part has though not been tested in court yet but most legal scholars agree that this would be the likely outcome should someone bring it up.

[โ€“] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

The logic was:

If I took home a $200 box of software in 1995, installed it, and then drove back to Circuit City in the morning and returned it, there was no way for anyone to tell.

Like, across all aspects of American media, profits skyrocketed with CDs because consumers couldn't easily copy them. With cassettes and floppy discs, piracy was just accepted. And when they got to start over with CDs/DVDs they wanted to do everything possible to break the piracy habit in the window they could.

American Neoliberalism kicked off with Clinton in 1992, which is when all this was happening and corporate profits were prioritized over all else in the pursuit of campaign donations.

Like, this shit didn't happen accidentally, we didn't just stumble into it.

There's reasons for why our shit is so fucked and it's not in the EU.