Amazon has opened a hornets nest! - Page 8

taustin · 01-17-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyGuy

No, the issue is that they have this ability at all. They have the ability to take someones private property with a mouse click. Whether they are upfront about it or hide it is irrelevant, the ability is the issue.

No, it's really not. When you buy from Amazon now, you agree that it is not, in fact, your private property, and that, under (now) very limited circumstances, they can delete stuff remotely, and there is no guarantee of advance notice. If you don't like it, don't buy from them. BTW, you agree to this when you activate the device.

The lawsuit wasn't about the ability to delete remotely, nor would such a lawsuit have gotten anywhere. It was about them lying about the ability, and violating their then terms of service.

You can hold whatever views you want, but the law is the law, and society at large isn't going to care about your issue.

And no matter how many times you parrot the "private property" mantra, an ebook is not property in any legal sense. Especially not now, from Amazon, where you agree it's not when you buy it. If you buy it with no intention of living up to the agreement, you're the one being dishonest, not Amazon. If you do live up to the agreement, then you have agreed to let them remotely delete books under certain circumstances.

CyGuy · 01-17-2012, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taustin

No, it's really not. When you buy from Amazon now, you agree that it is not, in fact, your private property, and that, under (now) very limited circumstances, they can delete stuff remotely, and there is no guarantee of advance notice. If you don't like it, don't buy from them. BTW, you agree to this when you activate the device.

I would not even consider agreeing to such a thing, it is shameful that anyone would fall for this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by taustin

The lawsuit wasn't about the ability to delete remotely, nor would such a lawsuit have gotten anywhere. It was about them lying about the ability, and violating their then terms of service.

I would like to think that a lawsuit over the ability to take something you own without your permission would have gotten very far, it honestly seems like a "no-brainer" to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by taustin

You can hold whatever views you want, but the law is the law, and society at large isn't going to care about your issue.

It is not my issue, I would not have allowed this to happen to me. It does make me upset that they were not forced to remove this ability though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by taustin

And no matter how many times you parrot the "private property" mantra, an ebook is not property in any legal sense. Especially not now, from Amazon, where you agree it's not when you buy it. If you buy it with no intention of living up to the agreement, you're the one being dishonest, not Amazon. If you do live up to the agreement, then you have agreed to let them remotely delete books under certain circumstances.

I purchase ebooks, not any "license" to read the book. They most certainly are private property.

Hellmark · 01-17-2012, 06:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I would not even consider agreeing to such a thing, it is shameful that anyone would fall for this.

I would like to think that a lawsuit over the ability to take something you own without your permission would have gotten very far, it honestly seems like a "no-brainer" to me.

I purchase ebooks, not any "license" to read the book. They most certainly are private property.

Have you ever paid for ebooks? Read the terms when you do, because you'll see that you most certainly are not actually buying them, but rather just a license. Legally speaking, things aren't in your favor.

taustin · 01-17-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I would not even consider agreeing to such a thing, it is shameful that anyone would fall for this.

If you have ever agreed to a terms of service that includes the option to update the terms of service, you have agreed to this. I expect you agreed to such terms of service here when you signed upt.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I would like to think that a lawsuit over the ability to take something you own without your permission would have gotten very far, it honestly seems like a "no-brainer" to me.

Since nobody is talking about that, who cares?

taustin · 01-17-2012, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Have you ever paid for ebooks? Read the terms when you do, because you'll see that you most certainly are not actually buying them, but rather just a license. Legally speaking, things aren't in your favor.

Let's see if he completely ignores you, too, and parrots the same old "it's my property" again without even acknowledging that anybody has said otherwise.

elcreative · 01-17-2012, 07:46 PM

CyGuy, please enlighten us as to how (if you have bought a book from Amazon) you have managed to get your own personal sales Agreement/contract that gives you personal ownership as I'm sure many of us would be interested in doing the same... otherwise you are in the same position as anyone else dealing with Amazon and do NOT own your eBooks, just licence them...

HansTWN · 01-17-2012, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elcreative

CyGuy, please enlighten us as to how (if you have bought a book from Amazon) you have managed to get your own personal sales Agreement/contract that gives you personal ownership as I'm sure many of us would be interested in doing the same... otherwise you are in the same position as anyone else dealing with Amazon and do NOT own your eBooks, just licence them...

The legal question is if such agreements are entirely legal. Some rights you cannot just "sign away".

Anyway, since we have Apprentice Alf watching our backs we can avoid a lot of the problems that we as readers might run into with the "license" setup. Although it would be wrong to take your money back AND keep your backup copy of the book.

CyGuy · 01-18-2012, 08:29 AM

I think the point some people are missing is this: The TOS literally means nothing. Private companies do not decide what rights you do or don’t have. The TOS could specify that any ebook sold by them must be read while wearing a purple shirt, on a windy day, while eating a ham sandwich. Failure to do this is against the TOS. It means nothing, even if you checked the “I Agree” box.

As for the property issue, the book is the same whether you read it on a piece of paper or a piece of glass. If you bought it you own it. I find it disturbing that this is lost on so many.

The “Hornet’s Nest” for me is the fact that a company can take away property that you own without due process of law. They simply should not have the ability to do this, period.

murraypaul · 01-18-2012, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyGuy

As for the property issue, the book is the same whether you read it on a piece of paper or a piece of glass. If you bought it you own it. I find it disturbing that this is lost on so many.

No, it isn't.
This is a pretty basic misunderstanding.
You may wish that they were the same, but they are not.

taustin · 01-18-2012, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The legal question is if such agreements are entirely legal. Some rights you cannot just "sign away".

Not really. It all depends on how the contract is written. Amazon's legal mistake in the Orwell books was not in the remote deleting, but in violating their own terms of service, and false advertising. Had they been up front about the ability, and included a provision for doing so in their terms of service, there would have been no legal issue. (The PR issue is another matter entirely.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Anyway, since we have Apprentice Alf watching our backs we can avoid a lot of the problems that we as readers might run into with the "license" setup.

That you have the ability doesn't make it legal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Although it would be wrong to take your money back AND keep your backup copy of the book.

No one has suggested otherwise. You're tilting at straw men here.

taustin · 01-18-2012, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I think the point some people are missing is this: The TOS literally means nothing.

That is the most idiotic thing you've said so far. No point in even reading the rest. You advocate illegal acts, plain and simple.

HansTWN · 01-18-2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by taustin

Not really. It all depends on how the contract is written. Amazon's legal mistake in the Orwell books was not in the remote deleting, but in violating their own terms of service, and false advertising. Had they been up front about the ability, and included a provision for doing so in their terms of service, there would have been no legal issue. (The PR issue is another matter entirely.)

I was not talking about Orwell, but the Amazon TOS in general. The discussion seems to have drifted in that direction (I agree that there was no legal issue in the 1984 case, but a major PR disaster). The TOS have never been confirmed by the courts in a legal case. They may well include items that are not legally binding, even if you agree to abide by them. You cannot, for example, agree to sell your children into slavery.

Same with DRM, it has never been tested if removing them for making a backup copy or reading the book on a competing reader is legal or not.

HarryT · 01-20-2012, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Same with DRM, it has never been tested if removing them for making a backup copy or reading the book on a competing reader is legal or not.

Depends where you live, Hans. DRM removal is entirely legal in the UK, and in many other countries, too.

murraypaul · 01-20-2012, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Depends where you live, Hans. DRM removal is entirely legal in the UK, and in many other countries, too.

However, distributing tools to enable removal is not.

taustin · 01-21-2012, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I was not talking about Orwell, but the Amazon TOS in general. The discussion seems to have drifted in that direction (I agree that there was no legal issue in the 1984 case, but a major PR disaster). The TOS have never been confirmed by the courts in a legal case. They may well include items that are not legally binding, even if you agree to abide by them. You cannot, for example, agree to sell your children into slavery.

Same with DRM, it has never been tested if removing them for making a backup copy or reading the book on a competing reader is legal or not.

The TOS are essentially the same thing as a click-wrap software license. And those most certainly have been upheld by courts - in some states.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Leaving the Nest: a comedy about SpongeBob, Pop-Tarts, and stuntmen	Maria Hooley	Self-Promotions by Authors and Publishers	0	01-26-2011 10:31 AM
Just opened up my IQ!	TallMomof2	PocketBook	22	11-25-2010 09:06 PM
The Girl Who Kicked The Hornets Nest	mushroomyakuza	Sony Reader	19	01-28-2010 06:13 AM
2 windows opened?	rcuadro	Sigil	3	12-18-2009 08:03 PM
Mystery and Crime Souvestre, Emile: FANTOMAS-A Nest of Spies [#4], v1, 02 April 2008.	Dr. Drib	BBeB/LRF Books (offline)	0	04-02-2008 04:45 PM

01-17-2012, 07:46 PM	#111
elcreative Wizard Posts: 2,888 Karma: 5875940 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: PRS505, 600, 350, 650, Nexus 7, Note III, iPad 4 etc	CyGuy, please enlighten us as to how (if you have bought a book from Amazon) you have managed to get your own personal sales Agreement/contract that gives you personal ownership as I'm sure many of us would be interested in doing the same... otherwise you are in the same position as anyone else dealing with Amazon and do NOT own your eBooks, just licence them...

01-18-2012, 08:29 AM	#113
CyGuy Avid Reader Posts: 769 Karma: 7777778 Join Date: Aug 2009 Device: PocketBook 902, Galaxy Tab 2 7.0, ASUS TF700, and Cybook Gen III	I think the point some people are missing is this: The TOS literally means nothing. Private companies do not decide what rights you do or don’t have. The TOS could specify that any ebook sold by them must be read while wearing a purple shirt, on a windy day, while eating a ham sandwich. Failure to do this is against the TOS. It means nothing, even if you checked the “I Agree” box. As for the property issue, the book is the same whether you read it on a piece of paper or a piece of glass. If you bought it you own it. I find it disturbing that this is lost on so many. The “Hornet’s Nest” for me is the fact that a company can take away property that you own without due process of law. They simply should not have the ability to do this, period.