3 ms·

It should be illegal to say "buy" when you don't get full rights. Call it "rent" or "lease", but "buy" should only mean "buy".

javajosh 3y ago
I agree with this. I think that current Kindle users have a valid class action lawsuit against Amazon. It's fraud. And if that lawsuit fails, then it only adds fuel to the antitrust fire.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
pvg 3y ago
You don't get 'full rights' when you buy a regular book, car or house.
- type0 3y ago
  There's a distinct difference of buying DRM-free ebook and renting DRM ebook and thinking you can use it on any device that you own - and "owning" here is still a central thesis.
  - pvg 3y ago
    There is a difference but the difference isn't 'there is a trivial definition of buy' as the GP suggests.
- nerdbert 3y ago
  You get a commonly understood set of rights which critically includes the right to re-sell it.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  Those rights of ownership tend to be governed by universal standards such as fee simple ownership (of real property), or within the US, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is established at the individual state and territorial level, and includes both perpetual ownership and resale ("first sale doctrine) rights, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code> "Licenced" usage rights are individually prescribed, at least at the level of individual products and licensors, and may well be specific to individual transactions. The specific rights granted or denied may be changed at any time without notice as well, or simply revoked outright, which has occurred numerous times in the case of digital works, rather notoriously with a version of George Orwell's 1984 sold^Wlicenced from Amazon, Inc.: <https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989048 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989...> (NPR, 2009) "The Kindle Lawsuit: Protecting Readers From Future Abuses" <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/kindle-lawsuit-protecting-readers-future-abuses https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/kindle-lawsuit-protect...> (EFF, 2009).
  - pvg 3y ago
    You can 'buy' a house with a restrictive covenant or an airline ticket you can't resell. The idea that 'buy' has some simple universal meaning and you're going to get Amazon for not using it properly is fanciful at best.
    - dredmorbius 3y ago
      Yes, it is true that there are certain restrictive covenants which can apply to real property. However, those covenants, deed restrictions, etc., etc., are themselves limited and governed by both local/state and federal law, to the Constitutional level in the US (e.g., restrictive covenants based on gender, race, and/or religion are utterly prohibited and unenforceable). Real estate transactions are also exceptional among those being discussed here in that they almost universally involve multiple lawyers for multiple parties (buyer, seller, lender, buyers' and sellers' estate agents, possibly individual representatives for individuals buying a house together in some cases, e.g., family law / marital disposition of property concerns). Which is to say that this is a very high-overhead and complex transaction. Which is precisely the opposite of what makes, in general, retail commerce possible. When I go into a shop and purchase an apple, or a prepared meal, or a set of dishes or cookware, or a toaster, or a magazine or book ... I select product, pay (via cash, debit, or credit), and the transaction is closed, with certain exceptions for warranties and the like, though those have limited applicability for most of the items mentioned. There are also distinctions in corporate and government purchasing, of both goods and services, where there is often (though not always) a substantial administrative overhead involving contracts and committments, though the two parties are typically operating as equals to at least a first approximation.[1] And yes, there are other exceptions such as contracts of adhesion (you may find these on travel fares, parking services, and the like), though these both 1) are uniform for all transactions between a given vendor and their customers and 2) are very frequently also subject to strong regulation and limitations as to terms and variability. But to state that there are no transactions in which ownership rights are near-total and all-but-universally uniform is utterly misleading. To all practical intents, there are purchases in which full rights in at least the material object do in fact manifest. ________________________________ Notes: 1. There is of course a range. National-level governments are often the more powerful party in purchase arrangements, whilst local (city, county, and often even state- or provincial-level governmental units) may be the inferior party. But both typically have at least some transactional support for tenders, and institutional expertise, not found in general retail transactions.

javajosh 3y ago

I agree with this. I think that current Kindle users have a valid class action lawsuit against Amazon. It's fraud. And if that lawsuit fails, then it only adds fuel to the antitrust fire.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

pvg 3y ago

You don't get 'full rights' when you buy a regular book, car or house.

type0 3y ago
There's a distinct difference of buying DRM-free ebook and renting DRM ebook and thinking you can use it on any device that you own - and "owning" here is still a central thesis.
- pvg 3y ago
  There is a difference but the difference isn't 'there is a trivial definition of buy' as the GP suggests.
nerdbert 3y ago
You get a commonly understood set of rights which critically includes the right to re-sell it.
dredmorbius 3y ago
Those rights of ownership tend to be governed by universal standards such as fee simple ownership (of real property), or within the US, the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), which is established at the individual state and territorial level, and includes both perpetual ownership and resale ("first sale doctrine) rights, see: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Commercial_Code> "Licenced" usage rights are individually prescribed, at least at the level of individual products and licensors, and may well be specific to individual transactions. The specific rights granted or denied may be changed at any time without notice as well, or simply revoked outright, which has occurred numerous times in the case of digital works, rather notoriously with a version of George Orwell's 1984 sold^Wlicenced from Amazon, Inc.: <https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989048 https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106989...> (NPR, 2009) "The Kindle Lawsuit: Protecting Readers From Future Abuses" <https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/kindle-lawsuit-protecting-readers-future-abuses https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/kindle-lawsuit-protect...> (EFF, 2009).
- pvg 3y ago
  You can 'buy' a house with a restrictive covenant or an airline ticket you can't resell. The idea that 'buy' has some simple universal meaning and you're going to get Amazon for not using it properly is fanciful at best.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    Yes, it is true that there are certain restrictive covenants which can apply to real property. However, those covenants, deed restrictions, etc., etc., are themselves limited and governed by both local/state and federal law, to the Constitutional level in the US (e.g., restrictive covenants based on gender, race, and/or religion are utterly prohibited and unenforceable). Real estate transactions are also exceptional among those being discussed here in that they almost universally involve multiple lawyers for multiple parties (buyer, seller, lender, buyers' and sellers' estate agents, possibly individual representatives for individuals buying a house together in some cases, e.g., family law / marital disposition of property concerns). Which is to say that this is a very high-overhead and complex transaction. Which is precisely the opposite of what makes, in general, retail commerce possible. When I go into a shop and purchase an apple, or a prepared meal, or a set of dishes or cookware, or a toaster, or a magazine or book ... I select product, pay (via cash, debit, or credit), and the transaction is closed, with certain exceptions for warranties and the like, though those have limited applicability for most of the items mentioned. There are also distinctions in corporate and government purchasing, of both goods and services, where there is often (though not always) a substantial administrative overhead involving contracts and committments, though the two parties are typically operating as equals to at least a first approximation.[1] And yes, there are other exceptions such as contracts of adhesion (you may find these on travel fares, parking services, and the like), though these both 1) are uniform for all transactions between a given vendor and their customers and 2) are very frequently also subject to strong regulation and limitations as to terms and variability. But to state that there are no transactions in which ownership rights are near-total and all-but-universally uniform is utterly misleading. To all practical intents, there are purchases in which full rights in at least the material object do in fact manifest. ________________________________ Notes: 1. There is of course a range. National-level governments are often the more powerful party in purchase arrangements, whilst local (city, county, and often even state- or provincial-level governmental units) may be the inferior party. But both typically have at least some transactional support for tenders, and institutional expertise, not found in general retail transactions.