Actually Amazon's TOS granted full rights to the purchaser, and never mentioned anything about them being able to remotely remove content.. specifically this part of the TOS is what got Amazon in hot water over it:
Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.
That would be true but the 1996 Bill tied no strings to the dollars. For example Congress typically says, "Raise your drinking age to 21, else your federal highway funds will be reduced by 5%."
Congress could have done something similar, mandating companies have equal access to all websites else get no funds, but they did not. As is typical of Cognress they handed corporations lots of money and no strings attached.
Your post contradicts itself:
first you say congress typically tied strings to dollars; then you turned around and said that congress typically handed corporations with lots of money and no strings attached. now which is it?
But the court systems and basis of laws are still pretty much the same, with some differences of course.
Could you have any more broad of an argument? That's like saying US Law and British Law are mostly the same because they happen to have a common historical background.
Slashdot Mirror
Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use.
That would be true but the 1996 Bill tied no strings to the dollars. For example Congress typically says, "Raise your drinking age to 21, else your federal highway funds will be reduced by 5%."
Congress could have done something similar, mandating companies have equal access to all websites else get no funds, but they did not. As is typical of Cognress they handed corporations lots of money and no strings attached.
Your post contradicts itself: first you say congress typically tied strings to dollars; then you turned around and said that congress typically handed corporations with lots of money and no strings attached. now which is it?
But the court systems and basis of laws are still pretty much the same, with some differences of course.
Could you have any more broad of an argument? That's like saying US Law and British Law are mostly the same because they happen to have a common historical background.