8 ms·
The courts will decide whether Amazon is right. One totally reasonable outcome might be that Amazon and other vendors will not be allowed to use the word "Purch
by ponker 6y ago
The courts will decide whether Amazon is right. One totally reasonable outcome might be that Amazon and other vendors will not be allowed to use the word "Purchase" for content that you do not own outright in perpetuity with rights similar to those of a book purchaser.
- andybak 6y agoI think this is the key point. They want to have their cake and eat it. Either sell me things or stop using everyday words that imply you are.
- csunbird 6y agoI really want an EU directive to define what is a "Sale" and what is a "License" or "Rent" and make it impossible to use the word "Purchase" when it is licensed to you, only to be used when you truly own the product.
- Spivak 6y agoI mean I agree with that this would be nice but I don't think this change would actually benefit ... well anyone because you can't buy really copyrighted works. The law turns any work on physical media into a single restricted-use indefinite transferable "license." It's not the word change would spawn a digital market where you could actually buy.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoEven a book purchaser only gets a "limited license" on the book's contents. The property rights only extend to the physical item, not what's printed in it. That's the whole issue with online consumption. The physical medium has disappeared and so only the license remains. The legal framework has not caught up yet. Amazon T&Cs' wording is wishy-washy ("on-demand viewing over an indefinite period of time") and that wording may cause them problems especially where consumers protection is extensive. My limited knowledge on contract law is that this sort of unspecified duration may not be permitted because the parties (especially the consumer) cannot know what he is signing up to when entering into the contract.
- tsimionescu 6y agoWhen buying a book, the only right that you don't get is the right to copy all or part of the book. Otherwise, you can keep it forever, sell it, lend it to others, sell it overseas (subject to any import/export laws, of course). This is not the same with a CD for a video-game, for example. I still remember that my copy of Starcraft had a note that I should notify Blizzard if I indended to lend the CD to any of my friends!
- mytailorisrich 6y agoThe big difference is that the CD for a video-game is just a transport medium to allow you to copy its contents on your computer. Sure you own the CD and can actually lend it but the person you lent it to has no right to effectively use that CD since only you were granted the right (license) to copy it on a limited number (which can be 1) of your own computers. Same if you buy a copy of MS Word. You do own the CD but you only get the license to install it on a couple of computers. Any term that purports to prevent you from lending your property has no value. The key point is that the license prevents others from installing the software/video game.
- tsimionescu 6y agoYou are more or less right, even in the EU. I think the only part where you are clearly wrong is here: > Sure you own the CD and can actually lend it but the person you lent it to has no right to effectively use that CD since only you were granted the right (license) to copy it on a limited number (which can be 1) of your own computers. The second-hand gaming market is obvious proof that you are it is indeed legal for multiple people to copy the game to their own computers from the same CD. The only limitation is the same one that applies to books: copying a book that you own for personal purposes falls under fair use, but selling/lending the book without also passing on / destroying the copy invalidates the fair use exception.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoI commented about lending, which is not the same as selling on and what you describe, so I don't really understand how my comment is wrong.