Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
My guess is that Amazon's offer has more to with recent market developments than fear of lawsuits (they are probably well covered through their contract with users and copyright laws). They believe that Sony and BN are about to seriously challenge their position in the US and such a generous offer will make Amazon look real good in the eyes of prospective buyers. Market economics and competition working for the users again. Enjoy the 30 bucks!
|
That is a mistake many people make...just because an EULA/Agreement/contract has a clause or terms in it does not make them legal or binding on the minor party. There are some pretty rigid laws about such things and it seems the larger the company the more they try and intimidate as well as flat out break those laws/regulations. They put in terms they know cannot be enforced because people simply are afraid to challenge.
This is especially true when one party in an agreement holds all the control and power. I've written and also agreed to many consulting agreements/contracts over the years and none of them are any more binding than the willingness of both parties to operate within the confines of the agreement.
And for these EULA's for physical goods, I do not believe any challenges have been made for what Amazon has done in this case. Like someone already mentioned, this is not done and also far from settled. Simply using the Whispernet is unlikely to grant Amazon access to remove or even monitor content on your device anymore than your ISP is allowed to invade your computers. This all might turn out good because it could create some well defined rules/laws/regulations for these devices.
But just don't make the mistake in assuming Amazon (or any similar company like, say, Sony) is in the right just because they have buildings full of lawyers and wrote an EULA that gives them all the power in the agreement...