Can other sites legally discount Kindle books?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by taustin

In fact, you are. Rather explicity. With a public statement that you believe the law does not apply to you.

Amazons TOS is not the law.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Amazons TOS is not the law.

You said you don't recognize the authority of any court. Ergo, you do not believe the law applies to you. Ergo, in a just world, the law would not protect you. You advocate illegal acts, and are publicly planning (though unlikely to act on said plan) a web site that would almost certainly be criminal.

[Lord Mahoney]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Does Amazon own the ebooks after they sell them to us? I think not.

They're technically not selling it to you. They're licensing it to you for personal use.

Yes, digital content is weird like that (and so are our laws).

[david_e]

... already addressed

[Apache]

Originally Posted by taustin

There's obviously some ability to do so - you remove stuff you bought through B&N by archiving it on their web site, after all - but it works a little differently, and it's not all that clear to me that actually removes it from the device.

The important thing, though, is that with Amazon, it's covered explicitly in the terms, and legally, I expect that will matter if it ever gets reviewed by a court. To be a "sale of goods," generaly, there needs to a single payment for an indefinite term of use. The first, a Kindle book has, the second, that particular term says no, you don't have.

I make sure to download any books I buy to my computer, including B&N, and run them through Calibre and some nameless plugins.
Apache

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by taustin

You said you don't recognize the authority of any court. Ergo, you do not believe the law applies to you. Ergo, in a just world, the law would not protect you. You advocate illegal acts, and are publicly planning (though unlikely to act on said plan) a web site that would almost certainly be criminal.

There is an authority, but it is major hubris to think that we understand its motives.

If we were suddenly told by congress? that we are no longer allowed to resell physical books would you stop reselling them?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Lord Mahoney

They're technically not selling it to you. They're licensing it to you for personal use.

It says so, in no uncertain terms, right in the terms of service that you agree to when you make the purchase.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Apache

I make sure to download any books I buy to my computer, including B&N, and run them through Calibre and some nameless plugins.
Apache

I do, too. But then, I have no intention or desire to pass on any books I buy to anyone else, unlike some.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

There is an authority, but it is major hubris to think that we understand its motives.

Completely irrelevant to what you said.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If we were suddenly told by congress? that we are no longer allowed to resell physical books would you stop reselling them?

It's been tried, and the courts resolved it. Correctly, as it turns out, which is usually the way to bet in the long run.

None of which has anything to do with your anarchistic nonsense. In all seriousness, dude, how old are you? You sound like a 14 year old who just discovered Ayn Rand[1] or something. Have you ever held down a job and supported yourself without help from your parents?

[1]Once described as writing the "best children's fictions of her day."

[Lord Mahoney]

The threads that give me the biggest headache are the ones where non-lawyers discuss legal issues... and take them seriously.

[Jozawun]

Originally Posted by Lord Mahoney

The threads that give me the biggest headache are the ones where non-lawyers discuss legal issues... and take them seriously.

Bush lawyers, we call them out here.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by taustin

It says so, in no uncertain terms, right in the terms of service that you agree to when you make the purchase.

It also says "Buy now with 1-Click!" not "License now with 1-Click!"

There's even a link underneath that that says "how buying works"--
1) Select a device
2) Click to buy
3) Purchase is sent automatically.

It doesn't say "your licensed content is sent automatically." It says "purchase." That implies that what you purchased is what was sent--not that you "bought" some kind of intangible thing, and they're sending you, not what you bought, but the material they've contracted to deliver, which material you don't actually own.

When a company says one thing in big print, and something else in small print far away (there's no easy link to the kindlebook TOS from the purchasing pages), the law has often held that the big print is usually what the customer gets to use.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It also says "Buy now with 1-Click!" not "License now with 1-Click!"

Indeed, you can buy the license with one click. They even have a patent on the idea.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

There's even a link underneath that that says "how buying works"--
1) Select a device
2) Click to buy
3) Purchase is sent automatically.

It doesn't say "your licensed content is sent automatically." It says "purchase."

As, indeed, the purchase of the license is.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That implies that what you purchased is what was sent--not that you "bought" some kind of intangible thing,

A computer file sent through the internet is every bit as intangible as the license that you bought.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

and they're sending you, not what you bought,

Which is the license as you agreed.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

but the material they've contracted to deliver, which material you don't actually own.

When a company says one thing in big print, and something else in small print far away (there's no easy link to the kindlebook TOS from the purchasing pages), the law has often held that the big print is usually what the customer gets to use.

The big print doesn't say you're buying a license. It also doesn't say you're buying the ebook.

Good luck with that lawsuit.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by taustin

The big print doesn't say you're buying a license. It also doesn't say you're buying the ebook.

Good luck with that lawsuit.

They're using the same language for pbooks and ebooks. There's nothing on the page to indicate "you can buy the *actual* physical book for [price], or a *license to use* the ebook for [other price]." They don't deliver the license. They don't even deliver text that says, "the details of your license can be found at [url]." They are trying to deceive the customers--to convince them that they're buying a book, while claiming to the courts that they're selling a license.

(Not my lawsuit. I don't deal with DRM, nor with ebooks that require store-based software to download. I think the "license" argument will hold up in court for a while... until some clever grifter finds some odd aspect of licensing law from some other sector of business, and uses it for ebooks. Possibly something involving liability for crimes, because that's where the legalities would get most messy. No, I don't have any specifics in mind. I just know that sometimes, it's advantageous to say, "no, I don't OWN that; I've only licensed the use of it. Someone ELSE is the owner; go after them.")

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They are trying to deceive the customers--to convince them that they're buying a book, while claiming to the courts that they're selling a license.

No they are not. No one is deceived, everyone seems to get it just fine, as they do with every other distinction of between tangible and intangible goods and services they encounter everyday.
The only times people seem more than slightly uncertain about it, because of the genuine novelty of new media and legitimate new issues, is when they argue about it here.
(Or people like my mom, who don't understand how someone can 'send' a picture to her cell phone, and still have it on their own. "They sent it to me, so they don't have it any more, right?" Is the 'Send' button deceptive? Need it be renamed 'Transmit Representation of Bitmap Data'?)