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

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 576793
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:

Lawyers can and do put EVERYTHING they can think of covering any scenario imaginable in contracts and licensing terms. That does not make it legally binding because the terms themselves may not be legal.

It is up to Sony to attempt to enforce the terms by taking someone who violates them to court. The court then decides of there is a legal basis for enforcing the terms and if they have indeed been violated.

Most of this legalese is designed to prevent piracy of some form or another. I wouldn't loose any sleep over it.

Actually, now the US government to enforce.

Check out TPP

(Actually this should be it's own thread)

Reply Parent Score: 3

Alfman Member since:

Thank you for the link. That's very informative stuff going on behind closed doors...

It covers everything from patenting plants, to anticompetitive use of patents, to drm enforcement (ie worldwide DMCA), etc, and I only read a fraction of the document.

[US: Consistent with paragraph 1] each Party [US propose; AU/NZ/VN/BN/CL/PE/MY/SG/CA/MX oppose: shall make patents available for inventions for the following] [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: may also exclude from patentability]:
(a) plants and animals, [NZ/CL/PE/MY/AU/VN/BN/SG/CA/MX propose: other than microorganisms];

[AU/CL/MY/NZ/BN/CA/MX/VN propose93; US/JP oppose: A Party may also provide that a patent may be cancelled, revoked or nullified on the basis that the patent is used in a manner determined to be anti-competitive in a judicial [VZ/CA/MX propose: or administrative] proceeding] [AU/CL/CA/MX propose: US oppose; consistent with Article 5A(3) of the Paris Convention.]

[US/AU/SG/PE/MX143 144 145 propose; MY/VN/BN/JP oppose146: (a) In order to provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that authors, performers, and producers of phonograms use in connection with the exercise of their rights147 and that restrict unauthorized acts in respect of their works, performances, and phonograms, each Party shall provide that any person who: knowingly, [CL oppose: or having reasonable grounds to know]148, circumvents without [CL oppose: authority] [CL propose: authorization] any effective technological measure that controls access to a protected work, performance, phonogram, [PE/CA/CL oppose: or other subject matter]; or

Edited 2013-11-14 22:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3