PlayStation lawyers have argued that "reasonable" players aren't being deceived by Sony's small print, which says digital game purchases don't grant ownership.
If only one Person can own gta6, what follows would be that a Copy of gta6 would not be the one Product called gta6, since it would be unreasonable to assume, that this Copy was the one original Product. Since no Product was involved no theft has taken place. Sony still has its Product. No one Else is in Control of it. It would be unreasonable to assume the Copy was the Product.
They actually argued the opposite. They’re trying to claim that if they sell a copy of GTA6 that confers ownership, then they can only sell one copy ever.
If only one Person can own gta6, what follows would be that a Copy of gta6 would not be the one Product called gta6, since it would be unreasonable to assume, that this Copy was the one original Product. Since no Product was involved no theft has taken place. Sony still has its Product. No one Else is in Control of it. It would be unreasonable to assume the Copy was the Product.
They actually argued the opposite. They’re trying to claim that if they sell a copy of GTA6 that confers ownership, then they can only sell one copy ever.
Not Copy. Instance.
They argue there is only one original Code and Product.
A Copy is just beyond their Argument.