Amazon behaving badly (again)

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

If you don't recognize the distinction, then perhaps you need to read more. Selfish denotes a lot more than that.

No. It does not have to. And I read plenty. That's how I know.

By your definition, pretty much anything anyone does that doesn't involve another person is purely selfish.

Yes. Pretty much.

Look. No one is entitled to DRM-free back-ups of their ebook purchases. That publishers don't want us to have DRM-free back-ups is not justification for claiming them for ourselves anyway (even if it is prudent). Breaking the TOS because we WANT backups we're (myself not excluded) not inherently entitled to is the epitome of selfish behavior in my eyes. We don't need or deserve them. We just want them. The difference is that I'm willing to acknowledge my own selfish motivations for breaking the TOS. I'm not hiding behind prudence.

[haertig]

So, "I'm selfish, but have no reason to be" is somehow more noble than "I'm selfish because I don't think it's fair to lose access to my eBook purchases, for example, if I complain about Amazon missing guaranteed shipping dates on other unrelated items"?

Being selfish without motivation is more honorable than being selfish with motivation? (notice I said "motivation", not "justification") One conclusion that might be drawn from this is that you are justifying your selfishness by admitting to it.

Anyway, it's maybe getting a little silly for us to dive any deeper into the word semantics of this. I'll just leave my comment as "It is prudent to back up your purchases". Why it may be considered prudent, will be left as an intellectual exercise for the reader.

p.s. - Personally, I do not consider you "selfish". I am merely using the word and definition you proposed, in the context that you proposed it, for the sake of discussion. I agree more with pwalker8's definition of the word, that includes the caveat "...to the detriment of others".

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by haertig

So, "I'm selfish, but have no reason to be" is somehow more noble than "I'm selfish because I don't think it's fair to lose access to my eBook purchases, for example, if I complain about Amazon missing guaranteed shipping dates on other unrelated items"?.

Nobility has nothing to do with it. And I'm not talking about complaining about missing shipping dates. Besides, who has EVER even remotely intimated that they've had their accounts closed, or access denied, because they complained about shipping dates being missed? That's a red herring.

"I'm being selfish because I WANT to be" (I never once suggested I, or others don't have reasons to be) by taking ToS-breaking backups I'm not owed or entitled to (for ebooks I don't have to purchase/license) is merely more honest than inventing justifications that don't exist. I'm breaking the rules. Period. Full stop. No "buts..."

[DNSB]

I will admit to removing DRM and making backups of ebooks that I purchase. The only books that are immune are those I borrow from the library -- I trust the DRM servers will be up longer than I will have those books. I have learned from experience that DRM server can and will disappear with little notice and that that what used to be music, videos or books will become useless files left on my computer.

As to the "ageement" between myself and the company from which I purchase an ebook? Much like the current uncertainty as to how enforceable shrink wrap contracts are, the status of terms of service used by many etailers is iffy at best. The insistence on referring to them as agreements doesn't help since the definition of agreement being used would appear to the "mutual understanding between two or more legally competent individuals or entities about their rights and duties regarding their past or future performances and consideration" legal definition. See adhesion contract for more on the subject of one-sided contracts.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by haertig

So while Amazon may have stated that you are only "renting" an eBook, a normal person would not expect that returning too many totally unrelated toasters or step stools purchased from Amazon, or writing too many product reviews, would result in them terminating your membership and taking away your eBooks and other digital purchases.

Hence, their EULA/TOS tends to get ignored. As it should be. There is a concept that most people are aware of, called "fairness". If something isn't fair, then all bets are off.

In the UK there is an Unfair Consumer Contracts Act.

You can’t enforce unfair terms in a consumer contract, or unfair consumer notices (eg signs on a shop wall or in a car park).

You can never enforce terms or notices that try to avoid your responsibility for: death, injury, faulty goods, goods that aren’t as described, selling goods that aren’t yours to sell

You might not be able to enforce terms or notices if they try to avoid your responsibility in other ways, eg: delays, unsatisfactory services. not doing what 
was agreed

Your contract terms might also be unfair if they weigh the contract significantly in your favour, eg: by providing for excessive cancellation charges and automatic loss of all upfront payments, by creating unbalanced rights, eg being able to cancel a contract at any time, but requiring the customer to give 3 months’ notice, by allowing you to increase the agreed price at a later date

Perhaps Amazon should be careful in the UK and countries which have similar legislation.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

In the UK there is an Unfair Consumer Contracts Act.

You can’t enforce unfair terms in a consumer contract, or unfair consumer notices (eg signs on a shop wall or in a car park).

You can never enforce terms or notices that try to avoid your responsibility for: death, injury, faulty goods, goods that aren’t as described, selling goods that aren’t yours to sell

You might not be able to enforce terms or notices if they try to avoid your responsibility in other ways, eg: delays, unsatisfactory services. not doing what 
was agreed

Your contract terms might also be unfair if they weigh the contract significantly in your favour, eg: by providing for excessive cancellation charges and automatic loss of all upfront payments, by creating unbalanced rights, eg being able to cancel a contract at any time, but requiring the customer to give 3 months’ notice, by allowing you to increase the agreed price at a later date

Perhaps Amazon should be careful in the UK and countries which have similar legislation.

The law is not that different in the US when it comes to contracts and evading responsibilities. As I keep saying, just because a company asserts something to be true, doesn't mean that it is true. In the end, it comes down to what a lawyer can convince a judge and jury to be the case.