Quote:
Originally Posted by bhaak
You know that "removing the DRM" is a violation of Amazon's Terms of Use
|
The phase you quote is not part of their
terms of use, unless there is some other document you are basing this quotation on. Links are appreciated! Yes, "removing the DRM" would be a plausible paraphrase.
We know your three word quotation, plausible as it may be, is not Amazon policy because boatloads of customers remove the DRM of purchased content and nothing is done about it. The only evidence we have for the OP case is that the dispute concerns cross-national purchasing, not DRM.
Quote:
|
"Your rights under this Agreement will automatically terminate if you fail to comply with any term of this Agreement."
|
That quotation is acccurate, except that you seem to have invented the boldfacing. Amazon's whole sentence is false, and it would indeed be funny if Amazon boldfaced the word that's the most clearly a lie.
Publishers big enough to do a lot of marketing research are the ones which almost always DRM their books. I draw the inference that DRM reduces digital shoplifting AKA piracy. Like the security cameras in my local Barnes and Noble, it often fails to achieve its objective.
I must have spent hours of my life waiting in lines to have bags opened and searched going out of big public libraries, like the main one in Philadelphia. It sucks that you have to do that, and then a lot of people manage to steal the books anyway. I'm not going to let physical security, or Overdrive DRM, stop me from using libraries. If I start buying eBooks, well, I already have DRM on library books, so it would be no change. DRM is similar to bag-searching and anti-virus software -- an annoyance that, knowing a bit of human nature, I find reasonable.