Sony's defense in the digital ownership case is basically 'you're not dumb enough to think you own GTA 6'

Saw a GamesRadar piece about Sony's lawyers and their argument in the digital ownership case. They're saying that reasonable consumers wouldn't be misled by the current disclosures, because obviously nobody actually thinks they own a digital game. Their logic goes like this: if you owned it, you could stop other people from buying it. So only one person could ever buy GTA 6. That's the example they used.

I get what they're trying to do legally, but it feels a little condescending. Like yeah, most of us know we're buying a license, not a physical copy. But the way they phrase it, using GTA 6 as the example, it's almost funny. Imagine if buying GTA 6 digitally meant you owned it outright. Rockstar would sell one copy and that's it. No pre-orders, no Ultimate Edition, no millions of players. The whole industry would collapse.

And honestly, with GTA 6 coming in November, this whole digital ownership thing is more relevant than ever. Most of us are going to buy it digitally, especially since there's no PC version announced and consoles are pushing digital hard. If Sony wins this argument, it sets a precedent that we're all just renting our games forever. That's a little scary for a game I plan to sink hundreds of hours into.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do think the 'only one person could buy GTA 6' line is a weird flex. It's like they're saying 'you're not stupid, you know you don't own it, so stop complaining.' Fine, but that doesn't make it right. I'll still pre-order the Ultimate Edition, but I'll be side-eyeing the fine print.

Source: GamesRadar+ · Curated content.

The "only one person could buy it" logic is funny to me, because that's basically how ownership of any digital item works, possession without exclusivity. Anyway, the edge case I keep coming back to is delisting. If a game gets pulled from the store, your license usually still lets you re-download, but not always. I might be wrong here, but does this case touch revocation at all, or just the store page wording?