longer.blue

I am a 3L finishing up my last year in law school. I have studied some property and intellectual property law, both of which are at the center of the current discussion around whether or not a customer "owns" the games they buy. I've seen a lot of discussion online surrounding this topic, but–as most things are in the legal world–there is a disconnect between language use between the general public and lawyers in the courtroom. I am going to try and explain the differences in how Sony and the public define "ownership" and how the court might balance these competing definitions. When you say "I went to Game Stop and bought a game," the average person would probably assume you went to the store and bought a disc. What is really being said is, "I went to X retailer and purchased a physical copy of X game." With the physical copy of that game, much like if you were to buy a music CD or DVD movie, you would be able to use it without the internet, resell it on the second-hand market, loan it to a friend, etc. That makes sense to us as normal people. If you waived around your disc to your friend and said "I own this game," your friend would likely agree with you. We both know I can't make copies of my copy to redistribute and make a profit off of–that would be illegal. DVD's display federal copyright law warnings with this same message before you get to the menu screen. None of us have a problem with this because most of us aren't trying to burn copies of our DVD's. But in both cases, neither of us dispute that I own the copy of the game or movie I bought. The "own the copy" part is just assumed. So what the hell is Sony talking about when they say "digital game ownership is impossible"? Well, they're not talking about your copy of the game, and they're not even talking about the limited license you buy when you spend money on their digital storefront. When Sony talks about "ownership," they are talking about the distribution and intellectual property rights of their video games. Let me give you an example to make this more clear. Game Rant published an article that demonstrates the clear confusion in the definition of "ownership." "Sony then cites an example, claiming that if "Plaintiff Jason Mendoza" had purchased Resident Evil Requiem on February 14, 2026, then "Plaintiff Edward Heycock" would not have been able to purchase the same game on February 25, as Mendoza would have owned the game then, not Sony. Essentially, Sony is claiming that it's impossible for a consumer to own a digital game like they would a physical copy, as the digital game cannot be traded, sold, or given away in the same manner." This is confusing because of the difference in definition being used. Under Playstation's logic, if someone were to truly "own" the digital game they bought, then, upon purchase, Sony would transfer the distribution rights, intellectual property rights, etc. surrounding the video game code. I find it hard to believe the plaintiffs or any other consumers are making such a ridiculous request. Rather, the plaintiffs argue they simply want the same control they have over a digital game as they would a physical copy–to be able to play that sole copy of the game offline, indefinitely, and to be able to resell that copy on the second-hand market. Hopefully, the plaintiff's lawyer is able to make this distinction clear to the court or the case might go sideways due to poor lawyering. On the other hand, the case seems to be narrower in issue–focusing on whether Sony violated a California statute requiring digital storefronts to make clear to consumers of the license limitations they agree to when making transactions online. It may be the issue of clarifying what ownership means doesn't even get brought up in court. In any case, it's probably going to be a while before Sony's lawyers understand what exactly is being asked when the layperson says "I want to own my digital game." It really just sums up to "I want the right to reasonably control the single copy of the game I paid full price for."