3 ms·

> Where's your evidence to the contrary? Oh, I don't know. Maybe when he visited the website of one of the largest retailers in the world, broke out his saved

> Where's your evidence to the contrary? Oh, I don't know. Maybe when he visited the website of one of the largest retailers in the world, broke out his saved credit card like usual, and clicked the gigantic "Buy now with 1-Click" button? I would love for this to get tested in court. Has it? My understanding (I'm not a lawyer, but heard this from a lawyer) is that the purpose of, say, signing a release form before playing paintball is not because it provides any real protection to the paintball company, but because it makes the signer less likely to sue. I feel like maybe this is a similar situation? It seems very much like Amazon is "tricking" you into signing away the fact that you "bought" something since the whole experience of the site is devoted to making you think you're buying it. Throwing in a hidden paragraph at the end doesn't change everything.

hobbes 14y ago
Well, good luck with the "1-click" button defense. heh. I agree that Amazon could be a LOT more open and clear about what it is that changes hands (ie some "rights") when we pay "applicable fees". But, it took me the best part of 10 seconds to find the license agreement. And, once found, couldn't be clearer.
- vidarh 14y ago
  It might vary by country and other factors... When logged in to Amazon.co.uk, with one-click turned on, there's no obvious link anywhere near where the product is presented that I can see. A search for "terms" also revealed nothing. A search for "license" revealed nothing. There's a small link saying "Conditions of Use & Sale" all the way at the bottom of the page. Clicking on that links takes me to a page that provides a very long list of conditions broken out by use and sale. However, searching for "Kindle" or "book" to find out where they are covered, yield nothing. A customer who has been led by the product page to believe the "Buy" button means what it said, could very reasonably assume they were covered by the terms in the "Sale" section. I think Amazon is threading a fine line here between having courts (at least in Europe) find that even if it might not constitute a sale, terms that deviate too much from the rights a customer would expect under the sale might be null and void, vs. alternatively find that the prominent language indicating a purchase might be illegally misleading advertising if such terms are allowed to stand... Then again I might just be too hopeful. In the meantime I won't be "buying" any Kindle books.
- losvedir 14y ago
  It wasn't the "1-click" part of the button that was the defense, it was the "Buy with" part. That is, when you actually click the button, it's telling you that are buying it.

hobbes 14y ago

Well, good luck with the "1-click" button defense. heh. I agree that Amazon could be a LOT more open and clear about what it is that changes hands (ie some "rights") when we pay "applicable fees". But, it took me the best part of 10 seconds to find the license agreement. And, once found, couldn't be clearer.

vidarh 14y ago
It might vary by country and other factors... When logged in to Amazon.co.uk, with one-click turned on, there's no obvious link anywhere near where the product is presented that I can see. A search for "terms" also revealed nothing. A search for "license" revealed nothing. There's a small link saying "Conditions of Use & Sale" all the way at the bottom of the page. Clicking on that links takes me to a page that provides a very long list of conditions broken out by use and sale. However, searching for "Kindle" or "book" to find out where they are covered, yield nothing. A customer who has been led by the product page to believe the "Buy" button means what it said, could very reasonably assume they were covered by the terms in the "Sale" section. I think Amazon is threading a fine line here between having courts (at least in Europe) find that even if it might not constitute a sale, terms that deviate too much from the rights a customer would expect under the sale might be null and void, vs. alternatively find that the prominent language indicating a purchase might be illegally misleading advertising if such terms are allowed to stand... Then again I might just be too hopeful. In the meantime I won't be "buying" any Kindle books.
losvedir 14y ago
It wasn't the "1-click" part of the button that was the defense, it was the "Buy with" part. That is, when you actually click the button, it's telling you that are buying it.