3 ms·

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

by 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.
- pvg 3y ago
  None of this changes the fact that there are lots meanings of 'buy', they include the buying of things with limited resale, redistribution and modification rights and nobody is going to make it illegal for Amazon to label their buttons 'buy' when they sell ebooks.
  - dredmorbius 3y ago
    The principle problems I have with your responses, despite some technical correctness, is that they studiously ignore: - That Amazon has extended special-case retail transactions to domains in which they were previously utterly absent: retail transactions of books, music, film, and other information goods. - That the degree, scope, timeframe, variability, and obscurity of Amazon's licensing are all tremendously greater than of other similar prior transactional forms. - That what were previously simple finite limited and closed transactions --- buying a book, music or video recording, magazine, etc., are now anything but. - That you're introducing other examples of recent retail practices, post-dating Amazon's significant entrance into markets and subsequent distortions to those. (I'll put that at the mid-to-late aughts, though Amazon itself of course dates to the mid-1990s.) And yes, there's been a significant transition increasingly toward licensing information product sales, most especially of software and information products, which can go back a few decades, but again hadn't applied to books, printed matter, music, and video to any appreciable extent. That Amazon, and you, continue to equivocate the term buy for transactions which are far better described as leasing or licensing. This specifically includes language on the Amazon website such as "Buy now" (for physical goods, ebooks, and audiobooks). Ultimately this is misleading and fraudulent in Amazon's case, and deceptive in yours. You're doing this repeatedly in this thread, not just in response to me, and are similarly failing to concede any points raised which contradict or reduce your own claims. Contrast my own multiple concessions. Etymology for buy: "get by paying for, acquire the possession of in exchange for something of like value; redeem, ransom; procure; get done". <https://www.etymonline.com/word/buy https://www.etymonline.com/word/buy>

by pvg 3y ago

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.

pvg 3y ago
None of this changes the fact that there are lots meanings of 'buy', they include the buying of things with limited resale, redistribution and modification rights and nobody is going to make it illegal for Amazon to label their buttons 'buy' when they sell ebooks.
- dredmorbius 3y ago
  The principle problems I have with your responses, despite some technical correctness, is that they studiously ignore: - That Amazon has extended special-case retail transactions to domains in which they were previously utterly absent: retail transactions of books, music, film, and other information goods. - That the degree, scope, timeframe, variability, and obscurity of Amazon's licensing are all tremendously greater than of other similar prior transactional forms. - That what were previously simple finite limited and closed transactions --- buying a book, music or video recording, magazine, etc., are now anything but. - That you're introducing other examples of recent retail practices, post-dating Amazon's significant entrance into markets and subsequent distortions to those. (I'll put that at the mid-to-late aughts, though Amazon itself of course dates to the mid-1990s.) And yes, there's been a significant transition increasingly toward licensing information product sales, most especially of software and information products, which can go back a few decades, but again hadn't applied to books, printed matter, music, and video to any appreciable extent. That Amazon, and you, continue to equivocate the term buy for transactions which are far better described as leasing or licensing. This specifically includes language on the Amazon website such as "Buy now" (for physical goods, ebooks, and audiobooks). Ultimately this is misleading and fraudulent in Amazon's case, and deceptive in yours. You're doing this repeatedly in this thread, not just in response to me, and are similarly failing to concede any points raised which contradict or reduce your own claims. Contrast my own multiple concessions. Etymology for buy: "get by paying for, acquire the possession of in exchange for something of like value; redeem, ransom; procure; get done". <https://www.etymonline.com/word/buy https://www.etymonline.com/word/buy>