Den 2009-07-20 skrev Bob Hauck <postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:03:11 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch
><erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:40:12 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>>> So Amazon basically made the worst possible call in terms of customer
>>> service. It wasn't the customer's fault that the books were not
>>> legal, and if they had been physical books it would have been
>>> impossible to retrieve them.
>>
>> It may not be impossible to retrieve them. For instance, if the
>> customer paid for the book with a credit card or paypal or any other
>> kind of electronic payment (which is the only way to buy anything from
>> Amazon anyways), the customer could be sued by the rights holder to
>> turn over his copy, resulting in a possible judgement if they failed
>> to do so, which would go on their credit report.
>
> So I should be afraid when I buy a book that it may be illegal and later
> on down the road I will be sued for actions I had no control over? That
> seems like rather a stretch.
Not in america, mind you.
> I think you are mistaken. The customer did not violate the copyright,
> the seller did. Any remedies would necessarily be against the seller.
>
> More to the point...has this EVER happened as you describe?
>
>
>> There's a hell of a lot worse things that *could* have happened than
>> getting your money refunded and the book automatically deleted.
>
> Yes, well, a comet could have hit the earth right after the people
> bought the books. That's about as likely as your scenario.
>
>
>>> The only remedy would have been to stop selling the books. Which is
>>> what anybody with any sense would have done in this case. Instead they
>>> decided to demonstrate the "gotcha" built into their product for all to
>>> see.
>>
>> They did stop selling the books, at least in the US. Why do you think
>> they didn't? And i've already explained why it's not the only
>> rememdy.
>
> Are you really that obtuse? Did I say they kept selling the books? No,
> I did not. That would be a stupid claim. But they _also_ took other
> action that I think was particularly stupid on their part.
>
> Whether or not your silly arguments about pursuing the buyers of the
> books holds any water, it is still the case that Amazon made a really
> boneheaded move.
>
> They conclusively demonstrated for all to see that DRM is anti-consumer.
>
>
>>> Or, if you care about your rights, maybe it was good that they held
>>> this little demonstration.
>>
>> Your rights? You don't have rights to retain a copy that was
>> illegally distributed. The copy is illegal, and being in posession of
>> it, while a mitigating circumstance, doesn't give you any right to
>> have that copy.
>
> The illegal act was the distributing of the copy. The remedy is against
> the person who made and/or distributed the illegal copy, not the person
> who received it. It is unreasonable for a rights holder to expect to be
> able to identify, much less contact and receive the book back from,
> every individual who bought it.
>
> Your great love for DRM-encumbered products and outrageous actions by
> rights holders is duly noted. Perhaps you should go work for the RIAA.
>
>
|
|
