4 ms·

In my view this is faulty logic -- Buying in this case is "buying", and is a redefined term inside the legal contract which you choose to agree to when Sony ac

by ncr100 1mo ago

In my view this is faulty logic -- Buying in this case is "buying", and is a redefined term inside the legal contract which you choose to agree to when Sony accepts your money for a license to access their published video games, and so, it does not mean buying in the mundane sense of physical goods. I would suggest this workaround: If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom society's, you must proactively declare -- in your mind at the minimum -- and accept without two-way agreement on behalf of everyone else whom you steal from, that theft means what you choose to define it as at any moment. Do that, then that logic is solid.

strictnein 1mo ago
Redefining common words is the issue here. > If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom society's Society's "norms" around buying is that you own the thing you buy, which is why we have different words for buy, lease, rent, etc. Society's norms around theft is that you have taken something from someone else and they no longer have access to it. Sony is the one with the different definition. They're the ones that should proactively declare it. And no, codifying it in legalese and burying it in a EULA isn't declaring it as society would expect. To add: when Blockbuster existed, we all understood that renting a movie there was a temporary thing and buying the VHS at Best Buy was permanent. That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is.
- Lord-Jobo 1mo ago
  Yes, if your transaction contract redefines very common well understood words like “buy” it honestly should be nullified in the eyes of the law. It’s an inherently deceptive practice. Want to create new definitions for new words or phrases? Totally fine, but then Sony would need to replace the “buy” button with “blease” or “blent” or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has been playing at for entirely too long. Or just be honest and call it leasing.
  - ncr100 1mo ago
    I disagree that it's "inherently deceptive". That claim deserve justification IMO. It's an obtuse-feeling abstraction. > ".. or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has .." Yep - I agree with the sentiment. Reality is, we have a set of systems in society capable of over-complicating (from a HUMAN sense) life, which reasonably can be seen to make life unpleasant for the less-enfranchised populations - those without a personal lawyer to review every action they take in life...e.g you and me.
- ncr100 1mo ago
  I get it. And the point I failed to make is they did redefine it via a normal process of contract. A bit of pedantry: > Sony is the one with the different definition Yes, agreed. And to build on that, Sony is using a normal legal vehicle, a contract to make that different definition. And customers of Sony are entering into contract .. which is very normal thing for customers to do when engaging in business relationships with businesses. > "That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is" Yep. To reinforce my yep, (tiredly - sorry but I am) - The yoke of bureaucracy and this complex economy we live in also rests upon us, the citizens. It is a burden - and an increasing risk as AI is unleashed into more and more of our systems, digital AND legal / policy / social. (AI has "infinite" memory so it can use circumlocution, taking advantage of overly complex and distracting Looping back: I could have said "it suuuuucks, f' the man, man!" as I do hold that view. However we are here, with legal contracts capable of imposing these broad and uncomfortable relationship constraints (eg between customer & business). SO the question, in my mind, is HOW are we going to understand WHAT we want society to look like, as presently and into the future an INHUMANLY complex set of rules is capable of limiting our expressive existence, leading reasonably to general dissatisfaction in life?
DrBazza 1mo ago
Well, in the UK under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, with goods, you're entitled to refund, a repair, or a replacement. We're not good at class actions in the UK, so it's down to the individual, but if a one time payment for a game that was physical media, isn't a 'good', what is it? I'll post the google/ai summary, but this mostly it: Your Main Rights by Timeframe Within 30 Days: You have the right to reject the item and get a full refund. After 30 Days and up to 6 Months: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace the item. If that repair or replacement fails, you are generally entitled to a full refund. The law assumes the fault was there when you bought it unless the retailer proves otherwise. After 6 Months: You can still request a repair or replacement, but the burden is on you to prove the fault was present when you received the item. You have up to six years (five years in Scotland) to bring a claim for faulty goods in court.
- ncr100 1mo ago
  Nice - I live in the USA, for reference. We don't have that, here. We have "Freedom" .. which I am suspecting is redefined to mean "kakistocracy".
kstrauser 1mo ago
> the legal contract which you choose to agree to when Sony accepts your money for a license Tell me more about this nonexistent contract I have with Sony.
- ncr100 1mo ago
  Sure, https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-march-2025/ https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-march-2... - see section 10.1. For part of the above sentence ... "it" is existent, not nonexistent. And about the ".. I have .." part of the comment you wrote, @kstrauser, by using their service a person must agree to their contract. So, if you, per-se, don't use their service, then you haven't entered into the (existent) contract with Sony! Here is the segment: > 10.1. All intellectual property rights subsisting in the Content, including all software, data, services, and other content subsisting in or used in connection with our Services, the Online ID and access to content and hardware used in connection with our Services belong to SIE, its affiliates, and its licensors. Use of the terms "own," "ownership", "purchase," "sale," "sold," "sell," "rent" or "buy" in this Agreement or in connection with the Content does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership of any content, data or software or any intellectual property rights from SIE, its affiliates, or its licensors to any user or third party.

by ncr100 1mo ago

strictnein 1mo ago

Redefining common words is the issue here. > If you don't accept society's rules about related norms, such as you having a different definition of theft froom society's Society's "norms" around buying is that you own the thing you buy, which is why we have different words for buy, lease, rent, etc. Society's norms around theft is that you have taken something from someone else and they no longer have access to it. Sony is the one with the different definition. They're the ones that should proactively declare it. And no, codifying it in legalese and burying it in a EULA isn't declaring it as society would expect. To add: when Blockbuster existed, we all understood that renting a movie there was a temporary thing and buying the VHS at Best Buy was permanent. That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is.

Lord-Jobo 1mo ago
Yes, if your transaction contract redefines very common well understood words like “buy” it honestly should be nullified in the eyes of the law. It’s an inherently deceptive practice. Want to create new definitions for new words or phrases? Totally fine, but then Sony would need to replace the “buy” button with “blease” or “blent” or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has been playing at for entirely too long. Or just be honest and call it leasing.
- ncr100 1mo ago
  I disagree that it's "inherently deceptive". That claim deserve justification IMO. It's an obtuse-feeling abstraction. > ".. or whatever they want to call this fake purchasing shit that all software has .." Yep - I agree with the sentiment. Reality is, we have a set of systems in society capable of over-complicating (from a HUMAN sense) life, which reasonably can be seen to make life unpleasant for the less-enfranchised populations - those without a personal lawyer to review every action they take in life...e.g you and me.
ncr100 1mo ago
I get it. And the point I failed to make is they did redefine it via a normal process of contract. A bit of pedantry: > Sony is the one with the different definition Yes, agreed. And to build on that, Sony is using a normal legal vehicle, a contract to make that different definition. And customers of Sony are entering into contract .. which is very normal thing for customers to do when engaging in business relationships with businesses. > "That is the expectation one has, not whatever a giant multinational decides it is" Yep. To reinforce my yep, (tiredly - sorry but I am) - The yoke of bureaucracy and this complex economy we live in also rests upon us, the citizens. It is a burden - and an increasing risk as AI is unleashed into more and more of our systems, digital AND legal / policy / social. (AI has "infinite" memory so it can use circumlocution, taking advantage of overly complex and distracting Looping back: I could have said "it suuuuucks, f' the man, man!" as I do hold that view. However we are here, with legal contracts capable of imposing these broad and uncomfortable relationship constraints (eg between customer & business). SO the question, in my mind, is HOW are we going to understand WHAT we want society to look like, as presently and into the future an INHUMANLY complex set of rules is capable of limiting our expressive existence, leading reasonably to general dissatisfaction in life?

DrBazza 1mo ago

Well, in the UK under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, with goods, you're entitled to refund, a repair, or a replacement. We're not good at class actions in the UK, so it's down to the individual, but if a one time payment for a game that was physical media, isn't a 'good', what is it? I'll post the google/ai summary, but this mostly it: Your Main Rights by Timeframe Within 30 Days: You have the right to reject the item and get a full refund. After 30 Days and up to 6 Months: You must give the retailer one opportunity to repair or replace the item. If that repair or replacement fails, you are generally entitled to a full refund. The law assumes the fault was there when you bought it unless the retailer proves otherwise. After 6 Months: You can still request a repair or replacement, but the burden is on you to prove the fault was present when you received the item. You have up to six years (five years in Scotland) to bring a claim for faulty goods in court.

ncr100 1mo ago
Nice - I live in the USA, for reference. We don't have that, here. We have "Freedom" .. which I am suspecting is redefined to mean "kakistocracy".

kstrauser 1mo ago

> the legal contract which you choose to agree to when Sony accepts your money for a license Tell me more about this nonexistent contract I have with Sony.

ncr100 1mo ago
Sure, https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-march-2025/ https://www.playstation.com/en-us/legal/terms-of-use-march-2... - see section 10.1. For part of the above sentence ... "it" is existent, not nonexistent. And about the ".. I have .." part of the comment you wrote, @kstrauser, by using their service a person must agree to their contract. So, if you, per-se, don't use their service, then you haven't entered into the (existent) contract with Sony! Here is the segment: > 10.1. All intellectual property rights subsisting in the Content, including all software, data, services, and other content subsisting in or used in connection with our Services, the Online ID and access to content and hardware used in connection with our Services belong to SIE, its affiliates, and its licensors. Use of the terms "own," "ownership", "purchase," "sale," "sold," "sell," "rent" or "buy" in this Agreement or in connection with the Content does not mean or imply any transfer of ownership of any content, data or software or any intellectual property rights from SIE, its affiliates, or its licensors to any user or third party.