From: John Francis
On Sun, Jul 19, 2009 at 02:02:43PM +0200, AlunFoto wrote:
> 2009/7/19 Graydon <[email protected]>:
> > The thing to think about is whether or not one wants to do business with
> > a company like that.
>
> Oh, absolutely! :-)
> That's why I don't have a Kindle.
>
> Maybe I'm too cynical, but I tend to think that one gets what one has
> paid for by buying into Amazon's scheme.
>
> Jostein
I find it amusing (although, sadly, in no way surprising) that much of
the anger here is being directed against Amazon - a company who acted
to preserve intellectual property rights - and not against the lowlife
who illegally sold the infringing copies.
One might reasonably ask why Amazon permitted such a lowlife to use the
kindle to distribute "infringing copies" in the first place.
If Amazon had performed due diligence BEFORE permitting said "lowlife"
access to their kindle network, they wouldn't have had to act to
"preserve intellectual property rights" after the fact.
Amazon is trying to portray themselves in the role of the virtuous
victim, when, in fact, they played the roll of the FENCE, distributing
stolen property.
Amazon has done wrong TWICE. First by distributing the "infringing
copies", and then by stealing them back from their customers.
--
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.
