Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Had Amazon gotten a court order *before* deleting the books, the debate would never have come up.
|
You've ignored this point several times already, so I suspect it's hopefull, but here goes again:
The real issue wasn't that they had the ability to delete stuff remotely, it was that they lied about having that ability. You can ignore that comment all you like, but it's still true. Even the lawsuit was about the lying, not the ability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Buyers would've gotten an email that said, "this book was sold to you improperly; it is being removed and your money refunded."
|
Which they could have done without a court order, of course. But they didn't, and they refused to tell anyone why they had deleted the books in question for several days, until after the press got hold of it. None of this has
anything to do with whether or not there's a court order.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
I suspect we have a difference of opinion about vocabulary here.
|
Yeah. I'm using definitions in line with what the law says, and you're not.
And again, note, that the lawsuit was not, as was claimed, a class action, was not lost, it was settled (because the plaintiff agreed it would never be certified as a class action), and in the settlement, Amazon still reserves the right to remotely delete books, including (under some very limited circumstances) without notice.