READ THE EULA.... Amazon, per the EULA, has the right to modify the services AND has the right to modify the EULA.
The EULA also says the "service" includes the provisioning of digital content. In computers, the common definition of provisioning includes both the activation and deactivation of any rights the user has to a particular resource. In this case, the book was the resource and the act of restricting the right of the book to the user was part of the provisioning process.
Your assessment is simply wrong. It is not a violation of the EULA (illegal is the wrong term). It is also not illegal to perform actions covered under the EULA unless those actions break the law. But there was no law broken here... in fact, Amazon was upholding the law by removing an illegally sold copy of a book.
So you're stating that Amazon may not be able to reserve the right to change the service they are providing?
Since every service provider has used this clause from the beginning of time, I would find it hard to believe that suddenly now the courts would rule that illegal.
Everyone from cable providers, cell phone providers, telephone services, credit cards, airlines, taxi cabs, etc etc etc always retains the right to modify the services they offer and prices they charge for those services.
Your right is to reject those terms by not using the services anymore when the service provider changes the terms. You also have the right to reject the EULA based on the existence of this clause. This user obviously was OK with this clause when he bought the device.
Amazon did not have the legal right to license a copy of the book to constitute ownership to the end user. Therefore, the user has no right to the content.
An analogy would be someone selling you a stolen car. Sure, you can claim you now "own" it because you paid for it, but legally the car is still owned by the guy it was stolen from. Just because you bought stolen property doesn't give you ownership of the property. In fact, you'd most likely be SOL if you tried to recover any funds as the police hauled away the car to give it back to the original owners.
No, the buyer did not have a license to the book because the seller did not have the right to sell him the book.
Because Amazon did not have the right to sell the book, they decided to revoke access to the book which they can do under the modifying services clause. This means they chose to modify the service to include the ability to delete books they accidentally attempted to license.
Changes to Service. Amazon reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such right.
When everyone is complaining that they had to spend 48 hours installing software on their laptop because their new, shiny laptop does not come with an operating system because people are demanding the $65 discount for the XP license they didn't want (which they will probably use anyway).
Are you kidding? You're saying that unions don't run the plants at Lockheed? You've got to be kidding! It's all union labor! From the guys who bolt stuff together to the electricians soldering wires together, they are all union workers.
Secondly, all *new* systems have issues "growing up". They have just gotten more frequent as the systems have gotten more complicated with more electronic systems and the such... the original B52s didn't have a single computer in them, it was purely mechanical. Today, the F22's are fly-by-wire with auto-pilot and advanced counter-measure systems in a frame that wouldn't be able to fly without the assistance of computers constantly measuring various aspects of the aircraft's flight. The F-22, F-35, F-117A and B-2 all have the same issue.. they are generally non-aerodynamic and all require computer assistance to fly. Most recently the Osprey had a bunch of issues.... and in a few years, they were fixed. Now the Marines prefer the Osprey over Helicopters which are basically death traps.
This is the reason why I avoid crappy software like Firefox and stick to MSIE! Firefox is riddled with bad, bloated code making it easily subjectable to these types of attacks. On top of that, the development model allows mistakes like this to get into the codebase without proper quality assurance.
According to the chart, 95 years after the date the work was published (assuming copyrights are still in place).
Stop stomping your feet like an infant. The fact is, if the makers of the movies didn't want to pay royalties for a copyrighted work, they should have picked an older story to make a movie about.
LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book. Does he (or even his family) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying? Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS. Communism?
On a separate but related note.... if Hollywood studios came up with their OWN IDEAS instead of just using comics / books / other movies as a basis for new scripts, they WOULD NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. Screenwriters need to start coming up with original ideas, not just remakes of movies from the 50s or childrens cartoons from the 80s.
I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.
I have known several priests and bishops in various faiths over the years, and many of them hold multiple doctorates and/or masters degrees (they have nothing better to do than read, one would think). One bishop (who has since passed) was psychologist for years before joining the priesthood. A priest here in Maryland is an electrical engineer, another priest has a masters in Russian literature (again, before he joined the priesthood) which he obtained in the 1970s. Another man I know of, who is now in his forties, had 4 doctorate degrees before he decided to join the priesthood. I know at least 6 bishops offhand that have doctors in theology or psychology.
Anyone, no matter what education level, can fall into ruts where they are only willing to believe what they believe and that's it, this includes both theologians and scientists.
When Bush was planning changes to NASA, the Liberals were up in arms complaining about how Bush would weaponize space. The quotes consisted of things like, "Space is free, we don't need to occupy it" and "Bush just wants to increase the US war machine."
I don't think Bush ever proposed merging the Air Force and NASA. NASA has always been civilian technology while the Air Force was military technology. If he did, I'm sure it would have bolstered the lame arguments of the lefties about weaponizing space.
Now here we have Obama talking about merging NASA and the Air Force. Where are the people disgusted that he is weaponizing space? Where is the outrage?
The global temperature hasn't risen in about 8 years (in fact, it has slightly gone down). So what's to fix?
But either way, this is kind of stuff is confusing. Supposedly pollutants in the air increased the global temperature but now we want to inject more of them into the air to decrease global temperature? How does that make sense?
I guess it's the same as fixing the the huge credit problem in the U.S. by telling banks to issue more credit to more at risk lenders?
Or by cutting the country's deficit by increasing spending?
Or by decreasing unemployment by giving illegal immigrants legal status so they can compete for the already limited number of available jobs?
Or by fixing solving the global nuclear threat by reducing our nuclear arsenal while Iran and North Korea continue to push theirs.
Is his Administration pulling these ideas out of their asses or what?
(I know I'll be rated a troll by all the kool-aid drinkers, that's okay)
I don't know why we have this anti-anti-work ethic. Why shouldn't the French try to work as little as possible especially when their country maintains such a high level of industrialization and influence in other parts of the world?
Anonymity has its uses, but this country has a much longer history - and a long legal basis - in people dealing with each other face to face, with all the cards on the table.
And I think that sums it up. In the Internet age, people have become accepting of information from anonymous sources with no concrete information.
Whistle blower laws were put in to protect people who reported illegal behavior without fear of reprisal. The point was that in order to provide the details of the behavior one would be giving away who they were because the information was only available to a limited number of people, making it easy to narrow down who the whistle blower was.
At one point, a source that was unknown was untrusted, so without being able to say, "I know this is fact because blah blah blah" meant you were probably making it up.
People today take the truth from anonymous sources as being as legit as truth from named sources, or even more so. That is backwards.
If you're man (or woman) enough, you should be willing to put your name out there so people can criticize you. If you hide behind anonymity (which is your right, btw), then I have just as much right to call you a liar, a coward and ignore anything you say.
Ooops not in there. Then again, I also grep'd Privacy, and it's not in there either.
Oh well.
An anonymous blog is like an anonymous flyer posted on a telephone pole. It's not illegal to post, and the anonymity only lasts as long as you aren't caught.
If you post too much information, you're bound to get caught. There is no right to be anonymous, only dumb luck.
And stop whining that Senator Doogan is a tattle tale.. aren't you a bit old for that?
You give me data since 1979 which that's less than 30 years of ice data for a planet 4.5 billion years old, and you expect me to use this data to determine that the planet is in dire straits?
How much ice was there in 1879? 1779? How about 2 million years ago? Maybe more? Maybe less? You don't know! So without historical context, this data is worthless.
For all we know, the amount of ice we had in 1979 was considered high, and that the levels we're at now are "still high but getting better".. or maybe you're right and the ice melting is a huge problem.
I remember some years ago, when I was a wee lad, scientists were worried about the over abundance of ice in the north pole "growing" to one side of the planet. This would, they theorized, cause the Earth to "flip" due to the excessive weight on one side of the planet. Well, last time I checked, my toilet flushes the same direction it did when I was a kid.
So... CO2 causes global warming, apparently on Mars and Jupiter too. Yet when sunspot activity decreases, this whole global warming trend slows down (to the tune of no increase of global temperature in over 8 years). And in the 1990s when sunspot activity was some of the highest ever recorded, global temperatures rose. I wonder if this is a coincidence.... or is it?
So really... are you all still addicted to that theory? That it's all about the CO2?
If having all these nuclear weapons is "equivalent to having your home surrounded by thousands of nuclear power plants.", then I feel pretty safe... I mean, despite all the hype around "nuclear disasters" at these power plants, they have proven very safe when managed properly. Most nuclear plants have been running in the U.S. and France for more than 30 years without issues.
But I doubt this is where Mr Hellman was coming from. Instead, he was using the hype of the nuclear power plants being bad and dangerous to (unsuccessfully) draw a comparison to try to scare people, making him just another alarmist (sorta like Al Gore is for Global Warming).
Instead of trying to scare people with such silly hype and alarmist speech, could we an intelligent conversation? Thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you read the EULA?
READ THE EULA.... Amazon, per the EULA, has the right to modify the services AND has the right to modify the EULA.
The EULA also says the "service" includes the provisioning of digital content. In computers, the common definition of provisioning includes both the activation and deactivation of any rights the user has to a particular resource. In this case, the book was the resource and the act of restricting the right of the book to the user was part of the provisioning process.
Your assessment is simply wrong. It is not a violation of the EULA (illegal is the wrong term). It is also not illegal to perform actions covered under the EULA unless those actions break the law. But there was no law broken here... in fact, Amazon was upholding the law by removing an illegally sold copy of a book.
So you're stating that Amazon may not be able to reserve the right to change the service they are providing?
Since every service provider has used this clause from the beginning of time, I would find it hard to believe that suddenly now the courts would rule that illegal.
Everyone from cable providers, cell phone providers, telephone services, credit cards, airlines, taxi cabs, etc etc etc always retains the right to modify the services they offer and prices they charge for those services.
Your right is to reject those terms by not using the services anymore when the service provider changes the terms. You also have the right to reject the EULA based on the existence of this clause. This user obviously was OK with this clause when he bought the device.
Amazon did not have the legal right to license a copy of the book to constitute ownership to the end user. Therefore, the user has no right to the content.
An analogy would be someone selling you a stolen car. Sure, you can claim you now "own" it because you paid for it, but legally the car is still owned by the guy it was stolen from. Just because you bought stolen property doesn't give you ownership of the property. In fact, you'd most likely be SOL if you tried to recover any funds as the police hauled away the car to give it back to the original owners.
No, the buyer did not have a license to the book because the seller did not have the right to sell him the book.
Because Amazon did not have the right to sell the book, they decided to revoke access to the book which they can do under the modifying services clause. This means they chose to modify the service to include the ability to delete books they accidentally attempted to license.
The EULA is available here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530
Specifically, it says:
Amazon modified the service by removing the book.
End of discussion.
When everyone is complaining that they had to spend 48 hours installing software on their laptop because their new, shiny laptop does not come with an operating system because people are demanding the $65 discount for the XP license they didn't want (which they will probably use anyway).
Yeah, that'll be pretty funny.
Are you kidding? You're saying that unions don't run the plants at Lockheed? You've got to be kidding! It's all union labor! From the guys who bolt stuff together to the electricians soldering wires together, they are all union workers.
Secondly, all *new* systems have issues "growing up". They have just gotten more frequent as the systems have gotten more complicated with more electronic systems and the such... the original B52s didn't have a single computer in them, it was purely mechanical. Today, the F22's are fly-by-wire with auto-pilot and advanced counter-measure systems in a frame that wouldn't be able to fly without the assistance of computers constantly measuring various aspects of the aircraft's flight. The F-22, F-35, F-117A and B-2 all have the same issue.. they are generally non-aerodynamic and all require computer assistance to fly. Most recently the Osprey had a bunch of issues.... and in a few years, they were fixed. Now the Marines prefer the Osprey over Helicopters which are basically death traps.
This is the reason why I avoid crappy software like Firefox and stick to MSIE! Firefox is riddled with bad, bloated code making it easily subjectable to these types of attacks. On top of that, the development model allows mistakes like this to get into the codebase without proper quality assurance.
If I have to /sarcasm, I will kill you.
Maybe you should refer to this chart. http://copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm
According to the chart, 95 years after the date the work was published (assuming copyrights are still in place).
Stop stomping your feet like an infant. The fact is, if the makers of the movies didn't want to pay royalties for a copyrighted work, they should have picked an older story to make a movie about.
LoTR was a great work by someone who really spent time and effort writing the book. Does he (or even his family) not deserve to reap the rewards of his efforts that we are all enjoying? Why does everyone think that just because you like it that somehow it's now no longer HIS but OURS. Communism?
On a separate but related note.... if Hollywood studios came up with their OWN IDEAS instead of just using comics / books / other movies as a basis for new scripts, they WOULD NOT HAVE THESE PROBLEMS. Screenwriters need to start coming up with original ideas, not just remakes of movies from the 50s or childrens cartoons from the 80s.
I don't think your father-in-law's views have anything to do with his education level.
I have known several priests and bishops in various faiths over the years, and many of them hold multiple doctorates and/or masters degrees (they have nothing better to do than read, one would think). One bishop (who has since passed) was psychologist for years before joining the priesthood. A priest here in Maryland is an electrical engineer, another priest has a masters in Russian literature (again, before he joined the priesthood) which he obtained in the 1970s. Another man I know of, who is now in his forties, had 4 doctorate degrees before he decided to join the priesthood. I know at least 6 bishops offhand that have doctors in theology or psychology.
Anyone, no matter what education level, can fall into ruts where they are only willing to believe what they believe and that's it, this includes both theologians and scientists.
When Bush was planning changes to NASA, the Liberals were up in arms complaining about how Bush would weaponize space. The quotes consisted of things like, "Space is free, we don't need to occupy it" and "Bush just wants to increase the US war machine."
I don't think Bush ever proposed merging the Air Force and NASA. NASA has always been civilian technology while the Air Force was military technology. If he did, I'm sure it would have bolstered the lame arguments of the lefties about weaponizing space.
Now here we have Obama talking about merging NASA and the Air Force. Where are the people disgusted that he is weaponizing space? Where is the outrage?
Crickets
How are they supposed to know if you bought it or stole it?
Maybe they should have a warranty-transfer process? Like automobiles do? Maybe they already do, the seller just lost the card?
Then again, how do you know the seller didn't steal the laptop? Are you in possession of stolen property?
Again, there is no way for Alienware to know whether your possession of the laptop is legit unless the legit owner notifies them of the transfer.
So I would go back to the seller and tell him/her to resolve the situtation.
The global temperature hasn't risen in about 8 years (in fact, it has slightly gone down). So what's to fix?
But either way, this is kind of stuff is confusing. Supposedly pollutants in the air increased the global temperature but now we want to inject more of them into the air to decrease global temperature? How does that make sense?
I guess it's the same as fixing the the huge credit problem in the U.S. by telling banks to issue more credit to more at risk lenders?
Or by cutting the country's deficit by increasing spending?
Or by decreasing unemployment by giving illegal immigrants legal status so they can compete for the already limited number of available jobs?
Or by fixing solving the global nuclear threat by reducing our nuclear arsenal while Iran and North Korea continue to push theirs.
Is his Administration pulling these ideas out of their asses or what?
(I know I'll be rated a troll by all the kool-aid drinkers, that's okay)
Or... better yet. We could salvage the bottom of cereal boxes for the secret decoder rings.
Even if they are cheap plastic toys made to amuse 4 year olds, they are certainly more advanced than anything North Korea has.
I don't know why we have this anti-anti-work ethic. Why shouldn't the French try to work as little as possible especially when their country maintains such a high level of industrialization and influence in other parts of the world?
Oh wait....
Yes! Shame on those 12 people for voting for a law that holds criminals accountable for their crimes! Shame on them, shame shame shame!
You mean video game playing adult isn't a recession proof job? Who woulda thunk that?!
Bang!
Anonymity has its uses, but this country has a much longer history - and a long legal basis - in people dealing with each other face to face, with all the cards on the table.
And I think that sums it up. In the Internet age, people have become accepting of information from anonymous sources with no concrete information.
Whistle blower laws were put in to protect people who reported illegal behavior without fear of reprisal. The point was that in order to provide the details of the behavior one would be giving away who they were because the information was only available to a limited number of people, making it easy to narrow down who the whistle blower was.
At one point, a source that was unknown was untrusted, so without being able to say, "I know this is fact because blah blah blah" meant you were probably making it up.
People today take the truth from anonymous sources as being as legit as truth from named sources, or even more so. That is backwards.
If you're man (or woman) enough, you should be willing to put your name out there so people can criticize you. If you hide behind anonymity (which is your right, btw), then I have just as much right to call you a liar, a coward and ignore anything you say.
Ooops not in there. Then again, I also grep'd Privacy, and it's not in there either.
Oh well.
An anonymous blog is like an anonymous flyer posted on a telephone pole. It's not illegal to post, and the anonymity only lasts as long as you aren't caught.
If you post too much information, you're bound to get caught. There is no right to be anonymous, only dumb luck.
And stop whining that Senator Doogan is a tattle tale.. aren't you a bit old for that?
This is just another example of people throwing personal responsibility by the wayside and blaming someone else for their own mistakes.
It's sickening.
Oh yay I love this argument!
You give me data since 1979 which that's less than 30 years of ice data for a planet 4.5 billion years old, and you expect me to use this data to determine that the planet is in dire straits?
How much ice was there in 1879? 1779? How about 2 million years ago? Maybe more? Maybe less? You don't know! So without historical context, this data is worthless.
For all we know, the amount of ice we had in 1979 was considered high, and that the levels we're at now are "still high but getting better".. or maybe you're right and the ice melting is a huge problem.
I remember some years ago, when I was a wee lad, scientists were worried about the over abundance of ice in the north pole "growing" to one side of the planet. This would, they theorized, cause the Earth to "flip" due to the excessive weight on one side of the planet. Well, last time I checked, my toilet flushes the same direction it did when I was a kid.
OH MY
So... CO2 causes global warming, apparently on Mars and Jupiter too. Yet when sunspot activity decreases, this whole global warming trend slows down (to the tune of no increase of global temperature in over 8 years). And in the 1990s when sunspot activity was some of the highest ever recorded, global temperatures rose. I wonder if this is a coincidence.... or is it?
So really... are you all still addicted to that theory? That it's all about the CO2?
If having all these nuclear weapons is "equivalent to having your home surrounded by thousands of nuclear power plants.", then I feel pretty safe... I mean, despite all the hype around "nuclear disasters" at these power plants, they have proven very safe when managed properly. Most nuclear plants have been running in the U.S. and France for more than 30 years without issues.
But I doubt this is where Mr Hellman was coming from. Instead, he was using the hype of the nuclear power plants being bad and dangerous to (unsuccessfully) draw a comparison to try to scare people, making him just another alarmist (sorta like Al Gore is for Global Warming).
Instead of trying to scare people with such silly hype and alarmist speech, could we an intelligent conversation? Thanks.