Amazon turned off customer’s Kindle account, blocking her from her books (2012)

Post by adrianN » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 11:14 AM UTC

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #81

smt88 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not like they haven't been warned that this would happen. Not only have they not been warned, services like Audible and Kindle are actively marketed to hide that possibility. If they really wanted people to understand that these purchases can be revoked at any time, they'd stop using words like "own", "buy", and "my library". It's fine to hold consumers responsible, but only if companies are transparent. "Buy"…

Pretty sure the fact that they use words like "own", "buy" and "my library" everywhere except the fine print could be used against them in court to argue that they really did "sell" a book and you indeed "own" it, despite what they put in some fine-print.

Post by GekkePrutser » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 11:31 AM UTC

Post by Qwertious » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 11:37 AM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #94

underdeserver wrote: post #20

Honestly? I'm okay with this business model. I know it's not a popular opinion here - but as there's no reasonable way to prevent people from unrestrictedly distributing copies, the business model of licensing books sounds reasonable to me. What's not reasonable is the lack of transparency when you're suspected of abuse. I understand that there are many bad actors, but these companies are judge, jury and executioner…

I'd also like to see requirements that companies aren't allowed to use terms like "own" or "buy" when referring to their content. They should have to use a term like "license" or even "borrow" to drive home that you're not paying for unfettered ownership. I get what you're saying about preventing copying being impossible without DRM, but I think you overestimate the prevalence of unauthorized copying, at least when t…

Post by pyuser583 » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 11:42 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #27

underdeserver wrote: post #20

Honestly? I'm okay with this business model. I know it's not a popular opinion here - but as there's no reasonable way to prevent people from unrestrictedly distributing copies, the business model of licensing books sounds reasonable to me. What's not reasonable is the lack of transparency when you're suspected of abuse. I understand that there are many bad actors, but these companies are judge, jury and executioner…

I'd also be fine with the T&C's saying "For any reason, we can terminate the services we provide to you, and we will refund any money's paid with interest". That way, the company can decide to keep the evidence to themselves and not need to go to court, but must forgo all revenue from your account.

Post by Qwertious » Mon, Oct 05, 2020, 11:45 AM UTC

0x_rs wrote: post #62

evgen wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you break the rules of the contract what makes you think you get your money back? If you want a refund you should be required to prove that the company was the one that violated the agreement.

"Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" The company refusing to provide a service and shutting your account down should be the one to prove an eventual violation of an agreement. Too often we are witnessing content and/or service providers refuse to acknowledge the cause of an account being blocked - most of the times I've read about because of false positives in automatic detection systems and the likes. T…