Quote:
Originally Posted by Elfwreck
Do you think everyone who uses Microsoft Windows, and has automatic updates turned on, should have a backup hard drive in case Windows decides to delete software from their machines when the update goes through?
The kid trusted that when the Kindle's TOS said "you have the right to a permanent copy of books you've purchased," that meant he had, well, a permanent copy. That Amazon wouldn't arbitrarily remove books he'd purchased. He used the hardware in the way the manufacturer recommended.
I don't think it's "foolish" to use hardware & software in the way it's suggested. Nor that users should expect the company that sells them digital content to remove it on a whim.
It's foolish to leave one's home without locking the door. It's not foolish to believe that the maid who comes in once a week to clean, isn't going to steal your valuables... and even if you should've locked up the valuables, that doesn't mean you can't prosecute the theft.
|
Let me give 3 other examples:
Scenario 1:
Amazon didn't pull the content, but the unit simply got defective without user's fault. It's new, so Amazon is responsible to deliver a workable unit.
Could you take them into account? Could you file a lawsuit?
The result for the user would be the same, his data is lost.
Scenario 2:
Let's assume, because of Windows Update, Outlook get's mixed up.
An alarm is lost, I forget about a customer meeting and loose a big client.
Can I claim these indirect damages?
I've used Outlook as intended, data simply got lost because of a faulty update.
Scenario 3:
We manage our stock level with Navision. A software update kills our data. We order wrong capacities, assuming incorrect stock levels. We can't sell those stocks, no demand.
I hope, I can make my point clear: Indirect damages are extremely complicated....
Do you agree, usually you can't claim indirect damages, just direct ones?
Then my question would be: What's the difference to the forementioned case?
Does it make a difference, whether the supplier is making a mistake (faulty update, damaged unit) or whether his actions are "of questionable nature"?
I guess, there IS a difference. In legal terms, probably it's called "Intend".
But then again, question is: Did Amazon have criminal intend or did they simply correct a mistake (confirmed, they did it in a stupid way)?