Arthur Besse@lemmy.ml to Not The Onion@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 天前Sony lawyers argue that nobody is stupid enough to believe they actually own digital games, because then only one person could buy GTA 6www.gamesradar.comexternal-linkmessage-square51linkfedilinkarrow-up1295arrow-down10cross-posted to: games@lemmy.worldnews@lemmy.worldtechnology@lemmy.worldgames@hexbear.netgames@sh.itjust.worksnottheonion@lemmy.mlnottheonion@sh.itjust.works
arrow-up1295arrow-down1external-linkSony lawyers argue that nobody is stupid enough to believe they actually own digital games, because then only one person could buy GTA 6www.gamesradar.comArthur Besse@lemmy.ml to Not The Onion@lemmy.worldEnglish · 3 天前message-square51linkfedilinkcross-posted to: games@lemmy.worldnews@lemmy.worldtechnology@lemmy.worldgames@hexbear.netgames@sh.itjust.worksnottheonion@lemmy.mlnottheonion@sh.itjust.works
minus-squareCorkyskog@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up5·2 天前That’s just contract law. Everything is from the stance of what you would assume a reasonable actor or “person” would do in the situation. Like normally if consideration (the act of pressing the button) was a button that said purchase or buy a reasonable actor would expect ownership. Their lawyers have to frame everything that way, even if they are obviously wrong.
That’s just contract law. Everything is from the stance of what you would assume a reasonable actor or “person” would do in the situation.
Like normally if consideration (the act of pressing the button) was a button that said purchase or buy a reasonable actor would expect ownership.
Their lawyers have to frame everything that way, even if they are obviously wrong.