Quote:
Originally Posted by anamardoll
*sigh* This is why we can't have nice things, I guess.
Look, this started because I pointed out the fact that when an indie author pulls a book from the B&N store, the reader can no longer download the book they bought.
Someone -- I won't even bother to check -- said, "I realize that B&N has scores of lawyers and I myself have zero legal training whatsoever, however, that must be against the law."
The Amazon TOS has been provided to demonstrate that, no, not really. That is all.
|
Maybe an exchange like that took place earlier in the thread but this recent talk of TOSs etc was started by me replying to the thing about B&N removing the download link and I didn't say "it must be against the law" (again maybe you were referring to someone else but no-one in this recent exchange said that either).
I was making a different point. It had been stated that a consequence of authors joining Select was B&N download links disappearing. I don't doubt the fact of that. The author was seen as to blame for this, however I was questioning the idea that B&N legally
had to remove the link. I think what happened is they had to remove its "for sale" link and weren't set up to do that without also removing the "re-download" link for paying customers. I'm not saying however that I thought B&N had to provide that second link.
In other words B&N provided a service (re-download-ability) that they didn't have to, but which was less good than it could be, and as such share some of the blame for the consequences of the author's decision to remove it for sale.
As has been pointed out by others I don't believe the fact that B&N or Amazon can remove the service of re-download-ability at will means they can revoke the license they gave me to use the file I already have.
Someone mentioned the infamous "1984" case. This is different because although it was shocking that they removed the file from people's accounts and kindles, they did so not because they had an at-will right to remove it at any time, but because they discovered they'd never had the right to distribute it in the first place.
EDIT: In light of stonetools' latest post let me clarify that when I say I believe B&N didn't "have to" provide a download link, I meant as a general part of their responsibility in granting the license to the file in the first place. It does seem that they have committed themselves by their own EULA to providing that link. In fact in my original posts I considered the possibility that they had some small print somewhere covering themselves in cases like this if the book was removed for sale but I wasn't able to check that so I didn't mention it. It now seems like the reverse is true.