This is solid research, and this evidence is really going to put Sony into an awkward position.

Companies shouldn't say you "own" a digital product if they can revoke the license at any time. Owning should mean something like when you buy a game from GOG - you get a non-revokable, DRM-free copy you can use indefinitely. Otherwise, you're really just leasing it.

It's mentioned on the wiki, but in California it's illegal to use words like "buy" or "purchase" on the checkout page for licenses like this. They have to show a clear notice that you don't actually own the product, which is why Steam added a banner on their checkout page.

Well that’s awkward.

Very curious to see how this plays out

Oh dear. lol. Perhaps the idiots who wrote that idiotic take on things should have actually done a little research first. It's so beautiful to see companies make stupid mistakes.

hard to believe their defense depends on "reasonable people wouldn't think you own your games"...

Will this be a special section under the wiki page for Sisyphus, or are they creating a new page?

Hilarious and awesome, and proof that if the court sides with Sony any bit at all, that the system is completely corrupted.

Watching Sony get bodied by both themselves and the community, is giving me life.