Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 11th Nov 2013 22:49 UTC
Games

Sony, June this year:

"PlayStation 4 won't impose any new restrictions on used games. This is a good thing," said Tretton, to huge applause from the audience in attendance. "When a gamer buys a PS4 disc, they have the rights to that copy of the game."

Sony's Software Usage Terms, updated today:

6.3. You must not lease, rent, sublicense, publish, modify, adapt, or translate any portion of the Software.

7.1. You must not resell either Disc-based Software or Software Downloads, unless expressly authorised by us and, if the publisher is another company, additionally by the publisher.

Liars. Similar language has been found on the boxes of previous PlayStation models, but that's hardly a comfort.

Thread beginning with comment 576670
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
A storm in a tea-cup
by Bengar on Tue 12th Nov 2013 05:54 UTC
Bengar
Member since:
2009-07-30

Just because Sony throws some random text into their end-user license agreement doesn't make it law or enforcible. All it gives them is an extra claim if they ever take a reseller to court for breach of contract. It's up to the court to decide and most places it would probably be thrown out due to other conflicting civil laws such as the first-sale doctrine.

If anything I see this as a potential launch pad for a legal challenge at big resellers such as GameStop. Though in the US back in 1987, Nintendo lost its case against Blockbuster when it tried to stop it from renting out NES video cartages. So I can't imagine Sony having much luck here with the banning of PS4 resales.

Reply Score: 3

RE: A storm in a tea-cup
by galvanash on Tue 12th Nov 2013 07:35 in reply to "A storm in a tea-cup"
galvanash Member since:
2006-01-25

Just because Sony throws some random text into their end-user license agreement doesn't make it law or enforcible. All it gives them is an extra claim if they ever take a reseller to court for breach of contract.


snip...

If anything I see this as a potential launch pad for a legal challenge at big resellers such as GameStop.


Considering it is a license agreement between Sony and users of their products, I don't see how you can promote that point of view. Resellers such as GameStop do not and have no reason to ever actually enter into this license agreement.

I'm just saying everyone is grasping for reasons to explain how this is not what it sounds like, when it is exactly what it sounds like...

It's up to the court to decide and most places it would probably be thrown out due to other conflicting civil laws such as the first-sale doctrine.


Maybe, but so what? I don't think that potential buyers should be concerned with whether or not the license agreement they are entering into is enforceable or not.

They should be more worried about whether it denies them freedoms they believe they should have - like being able to sell a game after you are done playing it. This license agreement clearly states that you do not have the right to do that without prior consent.

On the subject of first sale doctrine... The track record of US courts upholding first sale doctrine when it comes to licensed products is pretty damn confusing. Between Vernor v. Autodesk, UMG v. Audusto, and MDY v. Blizzard, I think it is safe to say that no one has any fricken idea whether the first sale doctrine applies to licensed products or not.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: A storm in a tea-cup
by bfr99 on Tue 12th Nov 2013 14:42 in reply to "RE: A storm in a tea-cup"
bfr99 Member since:
2007-03-15

License agreements cut both ways: You are free to interpret license terms any way you see fit until a court with controlling jurisdiction rules otherwise.

Reply Parent Score: 2