Quote:
Originally Posted by ZodWallop
I think the real gorilla in the room is the obvious: Kindle Unlimited wasn't designed to be used for research. Access to Kindle Unlimited isn't an inherent right.
The way you are accessing it is identical to the way scammers have accessed the system and therefore your unusual browsing has caused you to be banned and may do the same again. Amazon kicking you out of the system for behavior that seems (to the robots watching the system) suspicious isn't a surprise and I don't see you garnering a lot of sympathy with anybody.
|
Kindle Unlimited may not have been
designed for research, but my reading of the terms doesn't exclude anything that
Mistyfarm did and without a certain level of technical knowledge, I see no reason he or she would think that what was done should appear to Amazon to be "fraud".
Mistyfarm also wasn't expecting access as an "inherent right", but paid for the service instead.
I don't have a problem with Amazon placing whatever restrictions they want as long as they reasonably specify the restrictions. I do see a problem if they don't, and not just in this case. This is the same pattern (and subsequent discussion) that we've seen before with Amazon closing accounts, limiting returns, disabling device access, and not paying earned referral commissions. In each case, Amazon's actions contradicted their published terms with the exception of vague "at Amazon's discretion" clauses.
The main argument that I see against
Mistyfarm's expectations is that he or she should have known that that kind of use isn't what Amazon intended. My response is that it isn't (or shouldn't be, anyway) up to a consumer have to guess what Amazon intends or what kind of action constitutes a breach.
I'm not
surprised by Amazon's actions, but that's not because they're acting reasonably; it's because Amazon writes promises in such a way that they don't feel compelled to keep them.