Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  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 ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site