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.
I completely agree it’s not a restrictive licence and people basically did whatever. The next page of the manual talks about the installation CD being used as a form of DRM. The game requires the installation CD be in your computer to launch the game. No-CD patches were very common at the time because of that and there was nothing Blizzard could really do about them. Licences and DRM have always existed, they just weren’t as restrictive in 1994.
The difference between “you used to own your games” and “games used to have less restrictive licences that were difficult to enforce” is trivial in everyday discussion. I only point it out because it explains the statements by Sony’s lawyers. Legally speaking, nobody has ever owned their games. Even SuperTuxKart has a licence.
I completely agree it’s not a restrictive licence and people basically did whatever. The next page of the manual talks about the installation CD being used as a form of DRM. The game requires the installation CD be in your computer to launch the game. No-CD patches were very common at the time because of that and there was nothing Blizzard could really do about them. Licences and DRM have always existed, they just weren’t as restrictive in 1994.
The difference between “you used to own your games” and “games used to have less restrictive licences that were difficult to enforce” is trivial in everyday discussion. I only point it out because it explains the statements by Sony’s lawyers. Legally speaking, nobody has ever owned their games. Even SuperTuxKart has a licence.