Oolite Bulletins

Wow ... can it be that Amazon realised that stamping all over a customer in public during the runup to Christmas might be a bad idea?

The article makes a particularly good point regarding the ownership issue for DRM'd ebooks:

If my conjecture about Linn's offense is correct, then she has not violated copyright, nor has she done anything that would upset a publisher. She's merely violated the thousands of words of impossible fine-print that comes with your Kindle, Nook, Kobo, and iPad, as have all of us. This fine print will always have a clause that says you are a mere tenant farmer of your books, and not their owner, and your right to carry around your "purchases" (which are really conditional licenses, despite misleading buttons labelled with words like "Buy this with one click" -- I suppose "Conditionally license this with one click" is deemed too cumbersome for a button) can be revoked without notice or explanation (or, notably, refund) at any time.

(my emphasis). It could indeed be argued that, by using the words "Buy now", Amazon have actually sold the product to you, no matter what their T&Cs say. Of course, to settle that argument, you'd need dozens of lawyers and millions of pounds ...

Disembodied wrote:

... It could indeed be argued that, by using the words "Buy now", Amazon have actually sold the product to you, no matter what their T&Cs say. Of course, to settle that argument, you'd need dozens of lawyers and millions of pounds ...

<chortles>

Have I remembered correctly that in UK law, it is no longer possible for the "fine print" refinement in T&Cs to disagree/change the Headline summary, merely clarify details.

Therefore, Amazon's "Buy now" (with 1-click) is an invitation to tender, which, once money has been exchanged (i.e. when you click the button) is a legally binding contract. Since the meaning of the word "buy" is well understood, it would seem odd that Amazon's clarification in their T&Cs are allowed to say that "buy" doesn't actually mean "buy".

I did write to Amazon asking if they'd change (when you go from Physical copy of a book to Kindle version of the book) the "Buy with 1-click" to "Lease with 1-click" (which could then be further clarified in the T&Cs) and the headline contract summary would allow the user to know they weren't actually buying the eBook, just borrowing it, for a fee.

Amazon never replied.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

Have I remembered correctly that in UK law, it is no longer possible for the "fine print" refinement in T&Cs to disagree/change the Headline summary, merely clarify details.

Therefore, Amazon's "Buy now" (with 1-click) is an invitation to tender, which, once money has been exchanged (i.e. when you click the button) is a legally binding contract. Since the meaning of the word "buy" is well understood, it would seem odd that Amazon's clarification in their T&Cs are allowed to say that "buy" doesn't actually mean "buy".

I did write to Amazon asking if they'd change (when you go from Physical copy of a book to Kindle version of the book) the "Buy with 1-click" to "Lease with 1-click" (which could then be further clarified in the T&Cs) and the headline contract summary would allow the user to know they weren't actually buying the eBook, just borrowing it, for a fee.

Amazon never replied.

Perhaps you could get LittleBear to sue them.

Or, more realistically, bring the issue to the attention of a consumer protection agency.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

Amazon never replied.

This, sadly, is the ending to 99% of all stories about Amazon. Even finding a contact address where you can send a query can involve forging more than a few raging torrents and killing at least one goblin chief.

DaddyHoggy wrote:

Have I remembered correctly that in UK law, it is no longer possible for the "fine print" refinement in T&Cs to disagree/change the Headline summary, merely clarify details.

Therefore, Amazon's "Buy now" (with 1-click) is an invitation to tender, which, once money has been exchanged (i.e. when you click the button) is a legally binding contract. Since the meaning of the word "buy" is well understood, it would seem odd that Amazon's clarification in their T&Cs are allowed to say that "buy" doesn't actually mean "buy".

I did write to Amazon asking if they'd change (when you go from Physical copy of a book to Kindle version of the book) the "Buy with 1-click" to "Lease with 1-click" (which could then be further clarified in the T&Cs) and the headline contract summary would allow the user to know they weren't actually buying the eBook, just borrowing it, for a fee.

Amazon never replied.

I think that poor service is quite universal, especially with web companies. I never did find a means of contacting google to give my feedback on their decision to stop background images .

What a load of paranoid twaddle.

Y'all wanted to "protect content creators", & now you don't? Please, tell me you've heard of the law of unintended consequences.

fronclynne wrote:

What a load of paranoid twaddle.

Y'all wanted to "protect content creators", & now you don't? Please, tell me you've heard of the law of unintended consequences.

Personally, I'm all for "protecting content creators" - or, more simply, making sure authors get more money for their work. In my considered opinion, the biggest threat to the income of authors at the moment is Amazon, who are absorbing huge chunks of the available profit in the book market (e- and paper) due to their near-monopoly of sales - not to mention their ability to undercut other retailers thanks to their massive programme of tax avoidance.

With regard to DRM on books, I do not think that this protects authors at all. It's imposed by (in part) the big publishers, and (mainly) by Amazon. It's why ePUB files won't work on the Kindle, because Amazon is obsessed with proprietary formats and with (an illusion of) control. DRM merely inconveniences paying customers and does not prevent piracy. In any case, book piracy is not a problem for 98% of authors: the problem is obscurity.

fronclynne wrote:

What a load of paranoid twaddle.

Y'all wanted to "protect content creators", & now you don't? Please, tell me you've heard of the law of unintended consequences.

Nobody said content creators shouldn't be protected - at best I think Amazon should be honest about e-content - that you don't own it, you lease it - if they're upfront and honest, they can't be accused of skulduggery later.

The Harry Potter series of books are being sold THROUGH Amazon, but from Pottermore, and they're DRM-free (they're uniquely watermarked) so I can happily move the books between devices (and legally back-up) - so if Amazon decided to remotely wipe my Kindle - I would at least have these books (and other DRM-free, Kindle-friendly content) available. Amazon have never answered whether they have the ability to wipe non-DRM, non-Amazon purchased content from a Kindle remotely. It's a straightforward question that deserves a straightforward answer, not stony silence.

I'm currently not worried about my work being pirated - freetards aren't going to buy it anyway - but via Twitter I have a good relationship with my readers - they will and are buying my content and if it's DRM-free all the better for them.

All the authors I've read since childhood and bought and followed ever since have been through recommendations are loans of physical books from other people, the authors never received a penny while I was growing to love their work. I was never taken to court for reading a book that belonged to somebody else...

DRM protects Amazon, RIAA, MPAA, it splits the world into have-and-have-nots at their whim - it helps neither the author/artist nor the reader/follower.

Disembodied wrote:

In any case, book piracy is not a problem for 98% of authors: the problem is obscurity.

What he said. Probably 99.98%

Cheers,

Drew.

Disembodied wrote:

... the problem is obscurity.

Wave upon wave of demented avengers march cheerfully out of obscurity into the dream!