Skip to main content

View Diary: Amazon Caught Deleting Books on Customer Kindles (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  They didn't actually buy a product. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tmo, Lashe, Cali Techie

    They bought a license. I'm not a lawyer, but I think Amazon was probably within their rights.

    I don't have a sig line.

    by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 01:42:28 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  But it wasn't just their right to view (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cville townie, satanicpanic

      the material that was revoked, it was the actual copies that they had on their devices.

      I wanna quote another British poet.

      by Lazar on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 01:49:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Those were licensed to them. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tmo, Cali Techie

        They don't have ownership of the material. Just a license.

        I don't have a sig line.

        by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 01:52:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They bought a book, period. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          cville townie

          If you go to a used book store, you pay $10 for a pretty good read, and that is the end of it.  There is no inquest into the nature of the transaction that the used bookstore had with the prior owner of that book.

          And you get to keep your book.  If there are issues with that book, then it is the fault of the bookstore, and they will have to answer for any liabilities assessed as a result of THEIR mistake.

          tracert http://life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness

          by belzu on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:15:06 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They bought an intellectual property license (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cali Techie

            that they never had a right to buy. There's a difference.

            I don't have a sig line.

            by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:17:26 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And that is what is wrong with this scheme. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              la urracca, cville townie

              Intellectual property is a damaging invention brought about by legal system

              tracert http://life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness

              by belzu on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:20:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Intellectual property is the reason (3+ / 0-)

                writers and artists are able to make a living.

                I don't have a sig line.

                by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:23:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Intellectual property isn't the problem (4+ / 0-)

                  the fact that it's set up as a license which can be revoked at any time, at Amazon's discretion, is. Why does that need to be the case?

                  •  It can't be revoked at any time if the (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    smileyman

                    license is valid. In this case there was never a license. Amazon had no right to make the sale. The purchasers had no right to make the purchase. There was never any right to the license by either party.

                    Like I've said elsewhere in this diary, you can't buy something from someone who has no right to sell it.

                    I don't have a sig line.

                    by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:52:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  And you can most certainly bet (0+ / 0-)

                      that the legal owners will come get their property.

                    •  If it can't be revoked at any time (0+ / 0-)

                      Then why did you seemingly agree with the guy who posted this in response to my comment above?

                      Changes to Service. Amazon reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such right.

                      More to the point, why have a license to begin with? How about just selling me a copy of the book?

                      •  They'll sell you a copy of the book. (0+ / 0-)

                        Then they'll ship it to your house.

                        I shouldn't have said that it can't be revoked. I meant to illustrate that in this case, there wasn't a valid claim to ownership to begin with. My mistake.

                        I don't have a sig line.

                        by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 03:27:33 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  And this is exactly my point (0+ / 0-)

                          If what you said above was true, I would have less of a problem with it.

                          But I still haven't heard a good argument why digital goods should be treated any different from physical ones, if the law regarding stolen property works exactly the same.

                          •  The ability to reproduce (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            NMDad

                            is the common argument for the difference between digital and physical - it is tantamount impossible to physically copy large books for an audience of more than one person.

                            It is rather easy to do so with an electronic copy.

                            Hence, the development of the idea of license rather than property.

                          •  The changes to service (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            fernyreyes

                            clause seems pretty standard. Check the service agreements to some of the other electronic services you have and I bet you'll find similar language.

                            This is from itunes:

                            b. Removal of Apple Content or Other Materials. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice.

                            I don't have a sig line.

                            by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 03:48:54 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

    •  wihtin their rights (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      tmo, satanicpanic, Lazar

      in a legal system that gives corporations massive advantages over consumers.  Sure, within their rights, kind of the same way a dictator is "within his rights" to order a summary execution of political opponents within the context of the country's legal system.

      It this sort of thing is within the rights, then the rights need changing.

      "Don't go dragging reality into this." - Troubadour

      by Guinho on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 01:58:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What's with all of these (0+ / 0-)

        wild comparisons? We're probably talking about less than $15 a piece worth of intellectual property licenses that were revoked and then refunded by the company. You're talking about summary executions and calling it "kind of the same!"

        I don't have a sig line.

        by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:09:06 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Like Lazar, you are not getting this. (0+ / 0-)

          Rights are being appropriated by clever lawyers, at the expense of OUR rights.

          Like economists everywhere, you are reducing humanity to simple financial and monetary transactions.  This is a blatant falsehood.

          tracert http://life.liberty.pursuit-of-happiness

          by belzu on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:16:39 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What the hell are you talking about? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Cali Techie, maxxdogg, fernyreyes

            I'm not reducing humanity to anything. This was a financial transaction, and one in which the seller didn't have the right to sell what they sold.

            This discussion is becoming just silly.

            I don't have a sig line.

            by NMDad on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:20:02 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Think of it this way (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            schnecke21, NMDad, fernyreyes, smileyman

            Those e-books were stolen property. In the tangible world you can go to jail for possession of stolen property even if you bought it from someone else. Usually it's just confiscated, used as evidence in a trial, and then turned back over to the rightful owner.

            What Amazon did was the intellectual property equivalent. The upside was usually in cases where this happens with tangible property, the person who bought the stolen item is usually a victim as well since s/he rarely recovers his/her money. Amazon provided refunds.

            I don't see this as a problem.

            When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace. -Jimi Hendrix -6.0 -5.33

            by Cali Techie on Sat Jul 18, 2009 at 02:30:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site