3 ms·
That's true, but I see no reason for that not to be the case. If I've got access to books from anywhere, it makes sense that Amazon should have the right to acc
by zimbabwe 17y ago
That's true, but I see no reason for that not to be the case. If I've got access to books from anywhere, it makes sense that Amazon should have the right to access me as well. Then the rules of the free market dictate that if people should be offended by Amazon doing that, another company could make money from choosing a different path, and then Amazon would be forced to change its policy.
- tome 17y agoThe reason that rights have to be rights is that they're not always economically favorable.
- zimbabwe 17y agoMy right to the book provided to me straight from Amazon's private store, delivered to Amazon's private device, which I paid money and signed a contract to use? Do I have a right to it because somebody illegally published copyrighted work and handed it to me? I just said I was going to bow out of this conversation, so I'll end my line of thought with this: A company has the right to do what it wants with its products, and when that company is Amazon and has made countless innovations that help me find the stuff that I want, when it gave me my second-favorite gizmo, and when it has not once in the near-decade I've been a member violated my trust, when it's one above and beyond to make me happy, then I'm going to look with skepticism upon claims that Amazon's removing an illegal book and offering a refund equates to a sacrilege of justice. The people comparing this with 1984 are bizarrely wrong.
- scscsc 17y agoA company has the right to do what it wants with its products, and when that company ..., when it ..., and when it ..., when it's ..., then I'm going to look with skepticism upon claims that Amazon's removing an illegal book and offering a refund equates to a sacrilege of justice. All of the elided content in the above quote is presumably good stuff Amazon did for the commenter. It is my impression that the commenter has just admited to being driven by personal experience (instead of objectively judging) when he said that Amazon removing an "illegal" book from the Kindle is not unjust.
- zimbabwe 17y agoYou know you're allowed to address me, right? Since I'm, you know, a user on the site? I would have argued this position no matter what company had done it, because I think it's the right of the company. Mind you, if certain other companies has done this my stance would have been more along the lines of "They're allowed to do it, but they're assholes." Amazon, on the other hand, has never once done something to violate my trust. So when they do it, my reaction is "They're allowed to do it, and I can understand what made them do it."
- ghshephard 17y agoI'm about to partially violate "Resist complaining about being downmodded. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading" - but on behalf of zimbabwe. I vehemently disagree with almost everything he is saying about Amazon deleting an ebook that I've purchased, but, he is _absolutely_ adding to the discussion in an clear, concise, and interesting manner. Sometimes the HN "I disagree with this person so I'll try and make his comments dissapear" attitude drives me absolutely nuts. Stop it already. Please.
- zimbabwe 17y agoI don't mind. Sometimes the downvotes are indicators that the argument's not worth it. I figure I'll bow out of this thread of conversation. I'll disagree quietly and stick to my Kindle.