• mschae@discuss.mschae23.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    21 hours 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.

    • atomicbocks@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      18 hours 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
        0
        ·
        18 hours 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.

    • thisbenzingring@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      21 hours 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

      • gastroglizzy@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        21 hours ago

        licenses are a very IT central idea.

        No, that’s just the implementation you’re most familiar with. Licenses are a copyright idea that IT adopted and made digital. Every physical movie and game you own also comes with a license that authorizes your retail use of it, but forbids your commercial use of it. You can’t rent your copy of Shrek out to people, nor can you charge admission to people to watch Shrek at your house, nor are you allowed to make copies of your Shrek DVD and sell them, for example.

        • LaggyKar@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          16 hours ago

          Care to back that up? You wouldn’t need a license to do something that copyright laws already allow you to do on their own. For example, making additional copies for your own personal use is perfectly legal, if allowed depends on your local fair use or private copying exemption law (provided you do it without circumventing DRM, e.g. via the analog hole), even though of course the movie studio wouldn’t give you a license for that.

          Of course, DRM is the real issue here, as due to anti-circumvention the movie industry controls who can legally make players for movies on DVD/Blu-Ray (unlike on VHS and CD).

          You can’t rent your copy of Shrek out to people

          That’s literally how Netflix got started.