Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
However, with both of those cases, they know they're allowed to lend or sell the item to their friend if they wish.
|
That some uses and restrictions are different from one kind of thing to another should hardly hardly a dark secret to anyone.
And, not for nothing, you CAN lend ebooks. Amazon even facilitates it.
Thy fact that you can't lend them in exactly the same way as a paperback s not a suprise t mst people, because it's not a paperback.
The reason Amazon has not been sued over the "buy" button is most likely because there is nothing wrong with it, legally speaking.
That people might want, perhaps even deserve, or in some cases, have without knowing, other rights or permitted uses has little or nothing to do with the terms "buy" "lease" or "license."
Those things have to do with copyright law, fair use doctrine, DRM, and market forces as applied to the IP providers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
If the HarperCollins case actually goes to court instead of being settled, we may get an important precedent, because cases involving detailed consideration of how digital content works, are rare.
|
If it does go to court, I'll bet you a Dr. Pepper it will not amount to an important precedent in matters of buy/lease terminology.
ApK