---
title: 'Sony Says You Don''t Own Digital Games'
source: 'https://youtube.com/watch?v=LvkGq-w5l7g'
video_id: 'LvkGq-w5l7g'
date: 2026-09-04
duration_sec: 63
channel: 'Austin Evans'
---

# Sony Says You Don't Own Digital Games

> Source: [Sony Says You Don't Own Digital Games](https://youtube.com/watch?v=LvkGq-w5l7g)

## Summary

Sony is facing a lawsuit questioning whether consumers actually own the digital games they purchase. Sony's defense argues that games are licensed, not sold, and even contends that consumers can't reasonably expect ownership of a digital game. The transcript humorously critiques Sony's argument, highlighting the absurdity of claiming only one person could own a digital copy.

### Key Points

- **Sony's 'Licensed Not Sold' Argument** [[00:00]] — Sony argues in court that digital games are licensed, not sold, so consumers do not own them.
- **The 'Plausible Ownership' Claim** [[00:13]] — Sony asserts reasonable consumers wouldn't believe they own digital games, citing the nature of digital distribution.
- **The Absurdity of Limited Copies** [[00:25]] — Sony's logic is mocked with the example that a plaintiff buying a game would imply other buyers couldn't own it—implying only one copy exists.
- **Common Industry Practice** [[00:38]] — Valve, Nintendo, and Microsoft all use similar licensing terms, but Sony's argument is still considered flawed.
- **Consumer Expectation** [[00:50]] — The core issue: purchasing a game should reasonably include ownership, but Sony's stance suggests otherwise.

## Transcript

Hey, do you own a bunch of PlayStation games? Actually, you don't, at least according to Sony. So Sony's in the middle of yet another lawsuit, this time around, do you actually own a digital game that you have purchased? So Sony's argument, I actually wanna read it
because it's hilarious. The software is licensed to you, not sold. In the digital age, it's not plausible to allege that reasonable consumers believe they're obtaining ownership of a digital game. If so, then one plaintiff who bought Resident Evil
on the 25th couldn't have owned it because a plaintiff who bought it on the 14th would have already owned it. That's dumb as . I understand that pretty much everyone has this kind of language in their terms of service, whether it be Valve, Nintendo, or Microsoft,
that you are licensing not owning games. But to argue that there could not be possibly more than one copy of a digital game might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Maybe I'm crazy here, but if I click buy now
for a game that is being sold to me on a store, it seems reasonable to think that I would own the thing that I just bought. But oh no, I don't have physical games or digital games. I think it's time for me to go kick rocks.