Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Amazon 451: Burning Books Remotely
Posts
If I buy something in good faith. That is to say I buy something legal from someone a reasonable person considers a legit source of said goods.
That something is mine to own. Permanently. As in forever. As in no takebacks.
If the seller wants to undo the sale. He Has To INFORM me about the reason why. He then has to get my CONSENT to undo the sale.
Without said INFORMED CONSENT, the salesperson can not undo the sale. If he fails to INFORM me, even if I would later consent, he can not undo the sale. If he INFORMS me and I do not CONSENT, the salesperson can STILL not undo the sale.
No TOS or EULA can remove the right to informed consent. They may say they do, but they would be unenforcable. All sales are contracts between to equal parties, one side does not have more rights then the other, any change has to be made by both parties in unison.
For those that still have problems understanding this. If I sell you a Car. I can not reposses them arbitrarily. EVEN IF THE CAR IS A PINTO.
I believe the publication wasn't legal to sell. Or something.
Physical and Digital goods are two completely different things. Digital goods currently are seen legally most of the time as purchasing a license to use the "Good".
Secondly, if when you sold the car, both parties signed a contract with informed consent stating that you could repossess the car arbitrarily? Then yes you could, and you wouldn't need a second contract of sale. Because the first contract already covered that. Which is what TOSs are.
Khavall's Beginner's Guide to Music Everything(Theory Blog)
In fact I would suggest you remember what TOS stands for: Terms of Service. It means by what Terms the USER must abide by in order to recive Service. Same with EULA.
I dare you to prove that the users behaved wrong. And no, buying a copy that was stolen does not count. Because they bought the books in good faith from Amazon itself.
This would still require the police or enforcement by the police through a court ruling to actually reposses the stolen property, since the car owner or his dealership that sold you the car would still have no right to come onto your property and remove the car.
But that isn't the complaint Kipling was voicing. He's saying the copies belonged to the people. Which they didn't.
I would be fucking amazed if the Kindle EULA or TOS said that.
And as people said: Cops and the Courts. They can order a return and even then they might just order the seller to pay restitution to the victim.
And where the goverment would have to prove that its not yours and the default position is that the item being yours(possesion being 9/10). They would also have to prove that the most fair action would be to return it, not pay the victim for it.
Inocent until proven guilty, your property forever until proven otherwise. These are the baseline of society and no Tos or EULA can change that. Its not rocket science.
DRM Is An Accessory Before the Fact in the Kindle Deletions
It's a quick few paragraphs, but basically the guy claims that this is more a failure of the cloud computing model than actual DRM. Of course the DRM itself still causes plenty of problems.
PA D3 Battletags Form
PA D3 Battletags List
At least here in Finland (and rest of Europe), you acting in good faith doesn't mean jack shit if you bought something that was stolen / illegal. I would guess US laws are similar on this. Otherwise it would be too easy for professional thieves to abuse the system.
That's not true. Copyright doesn't exist when buying a Table. You can't, for instance, just buy a CD, put it in your computer, and then throw it up on the internet openly where everyone can get a free copy. Sure it's "your" copy, but you still can't do it. You may not like that digital media has strict controls over it that differentiate it from physical media, but you can't just say "Well it doesn't matter legally".
And no one said the user behaved wrong. Point me to where I did. Try. Oh I didn't? You're still just throwing out awful strawmen? Good to know.
How's this, I dare you to respond to my second point: If when party B bought a car from party A, they signed a contract with Informed Consent that stipulated that party A could at any point take back the car for any reason, then yes, yes they could do exactly that. The End User License agreement isn't "Same with" as the Terms of Service.
Also, hell, look at the linked article. What actually happened here was nothing more than Amazon deleting the specific publications from their servers.
Khavall's Beginner's Guide to Music Everything(Theory Blog)
Actually.... no. Digital goods are treated completely different in law, because software creates copy of itself each time it is run. You are leasing right to run software, not buying copy of it.
Depending upon the country, you can, both if one's concept of a CD includes the individual tracks as well as the entire compilation of tracks on the CD at once.
There's also the related question (to the thread) of whether or not the lack of practical enforcability (and thus the non-pursual of such cases the in the majority of cases) constitutes implied legality, at least ethically.
Time is not free. Many of these people now need to re-buy their book before they can finish it. Not a very good experience if you are settling down to read for a few minutes before bed.
That said, it could be just a combination of compying with IP law and technology limitations that did the revocation. IP laws say they must stop offering the book in their library. They might also have technology limitations that assume that cause books not in the library to be deleted during the sync. If it's a technological limitation, they should fix it. If they did it on purpose to make themselves appear less culpable for selling the book, that is a dick move. IMO they should own up to their mistake rather than yank books out from under their customers as a bargaining chip.
Right. Poor choice of words on my part. I think the author meant that it was a failure of the business model that uses cloud computing as a major feature. Basically the customer can get screwed if they purchase something and the core of the item only exists on the seller's server side.
PA D3 Battletags Form
PA D3 Battletags List
That's good to hear. No more book revocations.
This has already happened? Cite?
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
Second is people using the ability to make notes to their e-books(for school or such). If you swich and delete the original, might you not delete those notes? (one article said thats what happend to some people). Amazon should warn people so they can save their notes before switchin
This is a step in the right direction. (Apart from amazon being able to erase books like they never where. this is still doubleplus ungood).
Because 9% think it's too high, and shouldn't be cut! 9% of respondents could not fully
get their arms around the question. There should be another box you can check for, "I
have utterly no idea what you're talking about. Please, God, don't ask for my input."
There's a very specific phrase there, though. "In these circumstances."
I think that the specifics of this case are less relevant, BECAUSE there was little to no loss for the consumer. However, let's think about the precedent this sets. Imagine that in 40 years we ONLY deal in e-books, due to the various advantages and the advances of technology. Now imagine that a book becomes wildly unpopular and the market demands that it no longer be sold. At that point, have people agreed as a majority that Amazon can take a book back from you and give you a refund, if that becomes necessary? This fundamentally hurts the concept of e-books, because it means that the user has no control over the information they have access to. With real books, you won't lose something because Amazon changes their minds. In the case of e-books, they're setting a precedent that you don't have any control over your data.
Now, obviously that's a far-fetched, nebulous "what-if?", but it still provides reason enough to wonder whether the consumer should have any ownership in the data they buy. Heck, not even EA thought to build an "uninstall" command into Spore's DRM. This is Amazon getting ahead of the curve in terms of limiting consumer rights.
I don't know, that's why this line confused me.
True. I misspoke by calling it control of data. I understand the argument when it comes to software, somewhat. However, it does frighten me a bit to think that a technology which might supplant normal book publishing doesn't allow for you to have unfettered access to the data while still in possession of the device it was put on.