I don't know why you would bother to reference it. Utah's law is useless and means nothing. Utah can't enforce it nor do they have the power to actually punish any entities.

Which has nothing to do with the license given by the game. They can give you a perpetual, forever license. That does not mean they have to make it perpetually acquirable or activatable.

All current consoles technically do, but it depends on the developer and/or publisher to make it work. Example: It Takes Two. A player can invite anyone to play for free. Nintendo has done various similar things on many of their games for a long time now.

Which has nothing to do with the licensing terms or the law, and more to do with the fact that Sony's software and network engineers are bad at their jobs.

And that "copy" that is owned is still just a license. You can still create copies of installation media for backup purposes. The only thing you really lose is the ability to resell your license easily.

1. This wouldn't work for most games and would break most of them worse in the long run.
2. Rentals aren't not an accurate description either. When you rent something, you deprive the owner of that thing because you are the temporary "owner". When you rent a room or a house, the owner is not in it with you. When you rent tools from the hardware store, no one else can you those tools until you return them. Software does not work that way.

Developers can make the license whatever they want including on consoles.

Nope. You own a license to install and play Myst for as long as you have the media and hardware needed. If you lose that media or license, you aren't entitled to a another one.

Memories of your enjoyment.

Incorrect. You did not buy any rights.

The law is not complicated or hard to understand. This lawsuit will never see the light of day in court.

Wrong. About pretty much everything. It has always been, and still is, licenses.

You don't own any games and never have, unless you created it yourself.

It's almost like I read the summary and then read the actual article and then read the law. Sony's store already complies with CA law exactly as written.

Sony is already compliant with the CA law, regardless of what these retarded plaintiffs think.

Man it must be hard being as stupid as you are.

Per the law: "(1) “Clear and conspicuous” means in a manner that clearly calls attention to the language, such as in larger type than the surrounding text, or in contrasting type, font, or color to the surrounding text of the same size, or set off from the surrounding text of the same size by symbols or other marks."
(emphasis mine)

The box counts. Express consent is never required per the CA law.