• Zwuzelmaus@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    210
    ·
    10 days ago

    granted limited access to software that can be revoked at any moment.

    If it is that, then it may not be called a purchase. Simple.

    • EliteCloneMike@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      ·
      10 days ago

      It should be called renting (or something similar). But then, that would likely mean an expectation of a lower price tag and they wouldn’t want that. Who would rent a game for $80? Even if the rental is a decade or longer. Probably people out there that would and currently do this.

      • Sickday@kbin.earth
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        59
        ·
        10 days ago

        I would agree, but most leases have stipulations that restrict voiding the contract “at any moment”. You have to do something to violate the lease agreement most times so this is even worse than renting.

      • grue@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        10 days ago

        But then, that would likely mean an expectation of a lower price tag and they wouldn’t want that.

        In other words, they want to commit fraud with impunity. Because that’s what lying about the difference between a sale and a rental is: fraud on Sony’s part.

      • 🌸𝓯𝓵𝓸𝔀𝓮𝓻🌸@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        26
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        10 days ago

        It should just be called License. Put that there instead of the buy button. And clearly visible the minimum expiration date for the license. Reserve the buy button for actual perpetual licenses where not having access to the licensed good is a breach of contract good for money back.

        • mschae@discuss.mschae23.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 days ago

          Licenses are a copyright concept, but this isn’t a copyright issue. You’re buying a copy of a game, and you should own the copy after the purchase (which of course, means the company who sold it to you shouldn’t be able to revoke your access at will). That’s the part that sony is apparently not willing to do. But copyright-wise, it would be a license either way, so I don’t think it’s a good idea to confuse people with only tangentially related concepts here.

          • thisbenzingring@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 days ago

            licenses are a very IT central idea.

            I have to buy licenses of Windows, Acrobat, etc… It lines up with what Sony is trying to say too

          • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 days ago

            copyright(n.) c. 1729, “the exclusive right to make and sell copies of an intellectual production,”

            license(v.) c. 1400, “grant formal authorization to do what would be illegal to do without it,”

            Yeah… I don’t think you are right about that…

            • mschae@discuss.mschae23.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              10 days ago

              I don’t really see what that has to do with what I said? Unless you are saying that licenses exist for other things than copyright (in response to “licenses are a copyright concept”). That’s definitely true, I oversimplified to make my point, but I’m also pretty sure that copyright licenses are the only kind of license that are relevant here in the first place.