4 ms·

> "Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the

by buran77 23d ago

> "Were that the case, then Plaintiff Edward Heycock would not have been able to obtain the game Resident Evil Requiem on February 25, 2026 for $69.99 from the PlayStation Store after Plaintiff Jason Mendoza had obtained Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, because Mr. Mendoza, not Sony, would have owned it then" That's a very interesting defense. I wonder if it opens up a door maybe Sony would rather keep shut. If I can't own a copy of content because someone else has another copy, how does this play out for piracy? According to Sony's own argument, pirating a copy of the content is fine because others can/do still "buy" or "own" (rent/lease) it.

zenoprax 23d ago
> pirating a copy of the content is fine because others can/do still "buy" or "own" (rent/lease) it. Piracy is not theft. It is an infringement on another's right to distribute intellectual property. This lawsuit is wasting a lot of time by not simply addressing the long-standing norm of buying a physical object which bundles the content, the license, and it many cases the copyright protection mechanisms. Selling a used DVD is possible because the DVD contains the license — it is transferable and irrevocable by dint of its format. Digital goods lack these distinct features but the language looks the same so people are now feeling the rug pull. Hence, the pushback against abandoning disc sales.
- buran77 23d ago
  > Piracy is not theft. It is an infringement on another's right to distribute intellectual property. That wasn't the direction I was going towards. Sony treats digital copies as if only one can have the ownership rights attached to it. This logic can be extended to any other right. > Selling a used DVD is possible because the DVD contains the license — it is transferable and irrevocable by dint of its format. The format does not make it irrevocable, it makes the revocation impossible to enforce. The license is attached to the content of the DVD, not the plastic disc per se. This license gives me the right to read that disk and send that digital copy to my output device. It's also why I can't just copy the content to a disc I own and call it a day. So a digital copy read straight from Sony's storage and sent to my output device can very well have the same license attached to it. To be honest, I think it's a stupid defense but one that may just fly in places with the best justice money can buy. And there's a lot of money trying to buy a carte blanche to not give ownership rights to digital content, coming from every producer or distributor of such content.
  - zenoprax 23d ago
    > The format does not make it irrevocable, it makes the revocation impossible to enforce. Fair point and I should have used less ambiguous terms. I'm also thinking about the "Permitted for Home Use Only" nature of DVDs. Playing DVDs on a projector for profit (assuming no prior permission) is, of course, a breach of their protected rights no different than those who re-stream live sports over IPTV. It's easy to get caught in the details so I think it's useful to remind ourselves that "Intellectual Property" is fundamentally a temporary legal protection and that everything released to the public becomes public domain eventually, either de jure after N years or de facto (ie. "abandonware").
98codes 23d ago
It's not a great defense if you ask me, unless they're counting on the judge not knowing the difference between owning a copy of something vs. the IP and license to sell the thing. After all, Sony isn't selling the source code and IP for Resident Evil, they're selling a copy of the packaged software.

by buran77 23d ago

zenoprax 23d ago

> pirating a copy of the content is fine because others can/do still "buy" or "own" (rent/lease) it. Piracy is not theft. It is an infringement on another's right to distribute intellectual property. This lawsuit is wasting a lot of time by not simply addressing the long-standing norm of buying a physical object which bundles the content, the license, and it many cases the copyright protection mechanisms. Selling a used DVD is possible because the DVD contains the license — it is transferable and irrevocable by dint of its format. Digital goods lack these distinct features but the language looks the same so people are now feeling the rug pull. Hence, the pushback against abandoning disc sales.

buran77 23d ago
> Piracy is not theft. It is an infringement on another's right to distribute intellectual property. That wasn't the direction I was going towards. Sony treats digital copies as if only one can have the ownership rights attached to it. This logic can be extended to any other right. > Selling a used DVD is possible because the DVD contains the license — it is transferable and irrevocable by dint of its format. The format does not make it irrevocable, it makes the revocation impossible to enforce. The license is attached to the content of the DVD, not the plastic disc per se. This license gives me the right to read that disk and send that digital copy to my output device. It's also why I can't just copy the content to a disc I own and call it a day. So a digital copy read straight from Sony's storage and sent to my output device can very well have the same license attached to it. To be honest, I think it's a stupid defense but one that may just fly in places with the best justice money can buy. And there's a lot of money trying to buy a carte blanche to not give ownership rights to digital content, coming from every producer or distributor of such content.
- zenoprax 23d ago
  > The format does not make it irrevocable, it makes the revocation impossible to enforce. Fair point and I should have used less ambiguous terms. I'm also thinking about the "Permitted for Home Use Only" nature of DVDs. Playing DVDs on a projector for profit (assuming no prior permission) is, of course, a breach of their protected rights no different than those who re-stream live sports over IPTV. It's easy to get caught in the details so I think it's useful to remind ourselves that "Intellectual Property" is fundamentally a temporary legal protection and that everything released to the public becomes public domain eventually, either de jure after N years or de facto (ie. "abandonware").

98codes 23d ago

It's not a great defense if you ask me, unless they're counting on the judge not knowing the difference between owning a copy of something vs. the IP and license to sell the thing. After all, Sony isn't selling the source code and IP for Resident Evil, they're selling a copy of the packaged software.