Can other sites legally discount Kindle books?

[JoHunt]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But surely the purpose of a pawnbroker is to get a secured loan, with the goods being held as collateral for the loan. It's not intended to be a "sale", is it?

It appears that Pawn Stars hasn't yet made it over the pond

You can also sell goods to a pawnbroker.

[Apache]

In the US it is legally supposed to be a loan, but when you fail to pay the loan the pawn shop gets to keep the items you pawned. The majority of people using pawn shops never intend to recover the items pawned. With jewelry the pawn shop will either scrap them, or if in good enough condition they will sell them as estate pieces. (Estate has come to mean used in the jewelry industry and not items being sold out of an estate anymore.) If the item is sold as estate jewelry the shop makes an even higher return on their investment.
The one businesses I see that are worse for abuse are the Title Loan Businesses.
Apache

[Giggleton]

This might be a little off topic, but we decided yesterday that ebooks are not books, they are not actually even physical objects, therefore the first sale doctrine does not apply to "ebooks". We are not sure what to call "ebooks" now but we will come up with something soon I imagine.

[DiapDealer]

This might be a little off topic, but we decided yesterday that ebooks are not books

The royal "we" meaning "you" I take it?

[BeccaPrice]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

This might be a little off topic, but we decided yesterday that ebooks are not books,

Who is "we"?

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

This might be a little off topic, but we decided yesterday that ebooks are not books, they are not actually even physical objects, therefore the first sale doctrine does not apply to "ebooks". We are not sure what to call "ebooks" now but we will come up with something soon I imagine.

We'll call them ebooks. Just because an iPod isn't a pod doesn't change the name.

They're ebooks because that's what we call them. You may think the name is based on a false equivalency or relationship but it doesn't matter. The name is the name.

[graycyn]

Originally Posted by Apache

If you bought the merchandise not knowing that it was stolen and paid so low a price that you should have known it was stolen, you are criminally liable.
Apache

I should think criminal liability in this instance should be rather difficult to prove! Who determines how low a price must be paid to assume an item was stolen? There are, for instance, TONS of bargains on eBay, with low prices because sellers were clueless as to what they had or described it incorrectly, or just set a "buy it now" price too low, etc...

I got this Note with no contract I'm posting from at a VERY low price compared to what the market value was, yet it is a perfectly legit device, the guy had his receipt. He just was clueless about what he could have realized for it via selling on eBay.

I picked up two somewhat rare books recently on eBay, from two different sellers, paid about a sixth of the actual value (which isn't all that much, but enough for me to make a profit reselling them). I have no way to know if they were stolen or not, but in the rather unlikely event they were, I can't imagine that a court would find me criminally liable simply because I paid a low price.

Granted, if you find ebook bestsellers online with low prices, chances are they are not legit, still, there are a lot of people who would not realize this, especially if they were new to ebooks.

There are also ebooks available from "trusted" sources such as Amazon, B&N, Smashwords where the legitimacy of the ebook may be questionable, but no one really knows for sure. The Mary Stewart Arthurian series that is on Smashwords and Amazon comes to mind here.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by taustin

Depends on where you are, but yes, generally speaking, it certainly is. It is most certainly a violation of the contract you agreed to when you bought the book. A contract is like a promise; in return for something you want now, you promise to act in a certain way later. If you don't keep your promise, people think very poorly of you. They might even consider you dishonest.

But a contract is not a law, and violating one is not illegal.

I explained that because you seem a little fuzzy on the concept.

Um.

[Apache]

A contract is a legal document and is enforceable using the legal system.
Apache

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Apache

A contract is a legal document and is enforceable using the legal system.

The civil system, not the criminal system.

[Apache]

They are still legal, according to the laws passed by governments.
Apache

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Apache

They are still legal, according to the laws passed by governments.
Apache

You're just debating terminology. A contract is a legally-binding agreement, yes, but to break a contract is a violation of civil law, not criminal law. You can be fined for breaking a contract, but you can't go to prison for it.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But a contract is not a law, and violating one is not illegal.

Actually, it is illegal, it simply is not a crime.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But a contract is not a law, and violating one is not illegal.

In fact, yes, it is. It is not, generally speaking, criminal, but a civil violation is still a civil violation, and the fact that it's not a crime isn't much comfort when a court orders your employe to give 25% of your pre-tax paycheck to someone else.

And contract violations can, in fact, be criminal as well. Especially contracts regarding usage of copyright material.

And in the end, the fact that's not criminal doesn't make it any less dishonest. And if you make a promise you don't intend to keep, you're dishonest.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're just debating terminology. A contract is a legally-binding agreement, yes, but to break a contract is a violation of civil law, not criminal law. You can be fined for breaking a contract, but you can't go to prison for it.

murraypaul didn't say it was't criminal, he said it wasn't illegal. He was flat wrong. It's not just debating terminology, it's using words correctly. It matters, if you want people to have any clue what you're talking about. A web forum is a text only medium. If you can't use words correctly, nobody will know what you mean. What's the point of even trying, if you won't bother to be understood?