2009/7/19 Graydon <[email protected]>: > No. > > The publisher *changed their mind* about selling an electronic edition > and retroactively deleted the copies that had been sold. > > Think about this in context of news or political writing.
I just read the article again. The phrase "changed their mind" does not occur there. That came from something David Mann had "read the other day" but didn't state where. Remember that Amazon is a portal through which bookstores can sell their products. Amazon is skittish about copyright infringements by individual stores because the owner of the distribution rights may sue Amazon for not taking action against the bootleg copies. You can't blame them for reacting, can you? In the sense of protecting their business, I mean. However it's a novelty that they "collect" the sold item by erasing it from the customer's e-reader. As end-users we normally think ourselves morally impeccable if we have bought stolen goods in Good Faith, and are thereby entitled to keep what we have paid for. So again, I empathise with those who had their books deleted from their readers. It's not what they expected. But everyone who buys a Kindle automatically agrees to buying all their literature through Amazon, and the small type actually requests the buyer's conscent to Amazon doing this sort of thing, iirc. I really hope that Google's anticipated e-reader will not be constrained in this way. Jostein -- http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/ http://alunfoto.blogspot.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
