Originally Posted by taustin
The reasons it was such a big deal were that 1) they did so without any notice or explanation until the internet exploded on them, and 2) among the marketing claims when they first introducted the Kindle was that they couldn't do so, and their terms of service made no allowance for doing so under any circumstances.
I don't recall anything (yay or nay) RE Amazon's ability
to remotely remove content from a device in their original marketing claims. I'm not saying it might not have been there, only that I don't recall it and would appreciate seeing some corroborating evidence concerning those alleged initial marketing claims.
Originally Posted by ProfCrash
90% of the time the "victim" suddenly remembers that they did all these things, normally abusing the return policy, and works it out with Amazon. I have yet to read of one of these cases were the "victim" was in the clear.
That's been my experience as well. Not to say it couldn't
happen to a completely innocent party... only that the attention (not to mention the coverage) would be absolutely tremendous
were innocent babes being separated from their purchased content with any
sort of regularity. But I've yet to read any of these fairly rare incidents where the "aggrieved" customer didn't eventually reveal (little by little) the behavior that warranted being sanctioned in the first place. And then the conversation always devolves into variations on the "yeah, but it's the principle of the thing
" theme. The very direction that that this thread now seems to be headed, in fact.
Access to your "original" licensed, DRMed e-content is always an extremely fragile thing; regardless
of who you "bought" it from. "Honest" users have no more to fear in that regard from Amazon than they would from any other DRMed e-content retailer.