Quote:
Originally Posted by Doonge
I don't agree to disagree because that's not my point. You just pretend it is.
I said I trusted you that what we buy is a license, not the "ebook" itself. Additionally, I would agree that the Amazon document you linked to was relatively clear (I think in general Amazon is quite praised in its service quality and user satisfaction).
Your point, and Cinisajoy's aswell, is that users should read it or it's their fault.
I'm not trying to find who's guilty. I'm stating that for users who DON'T read the various TOS on the web or everything for every petty purchase they make, the process is less transparent that could easily be.
In other words, you try to attribute guilt (to user A, or company B) again and again in discussions, while I don't care, and yet you act as if you discuss with me.
My initial point was that I would be ready to buy DRM books, even if I could not unDRM them, but as such thing would make them DEFINITIVELY with some form of obsolescence (see how I pointed to discussions I've read here without intervening about publishers going bust and transferring their clients to another house with less than ideal arrangement), I would only purchase specific books, and only for cheap. This obsolescence induces me to behave as if I was renting ebooks, not buying them.
Why you allow yourself to nitpick so much is beyond me, and why you are systematically unable to enter other's frame of discussion and always balling in your cage is frustrating for me. If you were in some spectrum of autism (not a bad thing), knowing it would be easier for me, but are you?
|
Well now, yes it is entirely up to the user to read the contract.
If one fails to read the important document, yes the fault lies with them.
In a court the first question would be "did you read before agreeing or signing."
If the answer is NO. Then 99.9% of the time, the judge who has read said document says "Case Dismissed."
Now if Amazon hid their T&C, it would be a different argument.
Note: this is in the US.