Submitted 2 weeks ago by Fluffy_Ruffs@lemmy.world to games@lemmy.world
The detailed sourcing directly attacks Sony’s legal claim that a reasonable person wouldn’t expect to own their digital purchases on the PlayStation Store.
I has a PS4, with a couple of digital games, then I sold it and I didn’t have ps for a few years, recently I got a PS5 and my account didn’t exist.
Seems like Sony remove your account and your games if you don’t login in 3 years…
This feels like owning a yogurt.
Pretty sure that’s mandated by GDPR
GDPR mandates that your data must be deleted if you demand it. GDPR does absolutely not mandate that your data must be deleted against your will.
Absolutely sure that is not covered by GDPR.
You have right to be forgotten - that means if you want, you can request data deletion and it has to be granted.
Another part says the service can store the data only for as long as necessary, not that it has an expiration date.
GDPR says that data should only be kept as long as necessary for the fulfillment of what the user requested or consented to. So, I would say automatic account deletion after inactivity is a good idea for complying with the GDPR.
But you would typically implement that by sending out an e-mail before the deletion, to give the user a chance to keep their data. The GDPR does not block you from implementing that.
What you may be thinking of is a clause regarding free accounts, so a digital tracker can’t remember you forever just because you never specifically requested being deleted; if the account holds some form of monetized ownership, then I don’t think the same rules apply.
Absolutely not, the GDPR says that you have right to delete your data when you want and in a easy way and that your data may be kept as long as necessary, so what sony did was not to abid to the GDPR
It’s not for goods bought. Sony has the obligation to keep the purchase available for its users. For tax purposes, Sony needs to keep records for over 10 years in the Netherlands with “X purchased (or: rented) Y” regardless.
GDPR is not even relevant in this case.
Just Sony doing its Sony bastard stuff.
You can’t spell class action without ass. Or something to that effect, anyway, fuck Sony.
Just can’t win. They want to extract as much as humanity possible from every human. Like wtf, who cares, we just want to play games we spent money on and not risk you sneaking in and stealing them from our accounts. It’s not hard at all to be a decent fucking person. I hate large companies with such passion, I’ll NEVER stop sharing your pirated bullshit. Fuck you sony and all the others like this.
It’s kind of funny how everyone is up in arms about this now (and for good reasons), when like, that’s how copyright has always worked? You don’t own anything that’s copyrighted, except for what you yourself create and get a copy-monopoly on.
You don’t own the IP rights to the work but you can own a copy of it to do as you wish with. Unless of course you are merely renting a copy or purchasing a license to use that copy temporarily. That’s the difference being discussed here, nobody in their right mind thinks buying super mario 64 means you own mario the concept.
No, this has never been how copyright works, if you buy a book you own that copy of the book, the author can’t go into your house and take the book back, they can’t force a new version of the book onto you, they can’t require you to proof you own the book before they allow you to read it, and they can’t stop you from reselling the book. You OWN that copy, you don’t own the IP, but you own that copy of the book.
You own the physical thing, but you’re still only licensing the copy of the work, and agreeing to that license on purchase. Lookup the first sale doctrine. Your ability to resell used copyrighted works literally hinges on a supreme court decision.
What I’m trying to get at is, this should not only aggravate us towards Sony. It should radicalize you against Copyright.
Like, you are kinda right in one way, but there’s a difference between owning the intellectual property vs owning a thing.
It should be understood by most people that they are not buying the IP. They do, however, expect to own the product they paid for.
The company is trying to equate owning the IP to owning every copy of the product they sell. This is some bullshit, and everyone knows it.
I appreciate that you took what I said in good faith. I don’t know if I’m just failing to properly convey - I understand that when, say, you purchase a physical book, you own that thing. That’s because it is a thing, your one copy, a finite object. You do have limited rights to resell it too.
But what I’m trying to get at is, within copyright law as it exists now (and pretty much ever so far), even though you own that physical object itself, because it is bound with a copyrighted work, in a sense you actually do not even own that book. it’s because when you purchase a copyrighted work, what you have done in the eyes of the law is that you have purchased a limited use license. Your rights with that book are still restricted by that copyright.
I’m not trying to say that’s how things should be. I just think it matters to understand how things really are, if we’re inclined to want to change them for the better. Courts are not going to be able to go far enough to create the kinds of reforms that are wanted in the Stop Killing Games movement. It’s going to need new legislations.
Bruh copyright is about the right to make copies… completely different thing… its in the name cmon man
That that is nuts. Are you telling me you’ve never bought anything in your life? That’s the only way I can imagine that you could be so far off base.
It’s not a take, dude. It’s literally just what the law is.
When I buy a copy of something I don’t expect to own the intellectual property and all of the themes and elements that make up the intellectual property. I expect to own that one copy that I bought. Just the copy. The medium.
Omggg hahaha. Sorry this was a reaction image. I dont know why it didn’t turn up
“Do we really own anything? How absurd. Memento mori, dust in the wind.”
The jury applauds, Sony wins
Fuck them, go Linux! My mid-tier PC can perform better as a PS5.
gex@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Here’s the actual wiki
MolochHorridus@piefed.social 2 weeks ago
If they meet in any reasonable court, Sony is fucked.
Peffse@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Well, any person who has made a PSN account in the past 15 years is bound by arbitration. An arbiter that Sony pays. An arbiter that will not get paid again if they rule against Sony.
So… probably not reasonable.
Malica@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
They’ll settle
UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 weeks ago
Capitalism
Cris_Citrus@piefed.zip 2 weeks ago
Oh shit, its rossman’s consumer rights wiki! Cool to see ☺️