4 ms·
Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but it looks to me like Amazon does not hold the right to delete books in the case of a ToS abuse, which means that they
by tomerv 14y ago
Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but it looks to me like Amazon does not hold the right to delete books in the case of a ToS abuse, which means that they shouldn't have deleted the books in this case.
- lambada 14y agoIIRC that case was based entirely in the US. As somehow Amazon UK seem to be involved in this case too, it's possible that those agreements don't apply to this case.
- dtparr 14y agoI would have thought the same. Perhaps the 'Amazon' that is bound under this settlement is a different corporate entity as the 'Amazon' in this case. E.g. Amazon.com vs. Amazon.co.uk
- rmc 14y agoAs a tangent, I hate how trademark law protects the "Amazon" brand for book sellers, but there are 2 different companies. I think that if the company wants to keep a trademark, then any company that uses/is licenced that trademark is legally counted as the same company. This way Joe Soap, upon seeing the "Amazon" trademark, is not able to screwed around by corporate structure shenanigans. Or Amazon Ltd. have the choice of giving up the trademark.
- stickfigure 14y agoI doubt that would matter in this case. Different laws apply to different jurisdictions. The fact that Amazon US and Amazon UK are two different companies is a red herring; a purchase in one jurisdiction may entail different rights than a purchase in other jurisdictions, even from the same company.