161–170 of 494 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in europe. Here, it's fair use.
It's fair use in the States, too, when the result is exercise of fair use. The fact that provisions in the DMCA could allow someone to go after a linux user using mplayer to play his DVDs doesn't mean that someone will pursue that case - it would create a serious risk of getting provisions of the law stricken by the courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hear, hear. I've been watching for hell-banned users for a few weeks now and from a random sample, some of the bannings are a little harsh. Maybe there should be a stage before hell-banning?
Maybe HN should reveal who the hell banners are?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not in europe. Here, it's fair use.
It's fair use in the States, too, when the result is exercise of fair use. The fact that provisions in the DMCA could allow someone to go after a linux user using mplayer to play his DVDs doesn't mean that someone will pursue that case - it would create a serious risk of getting provisions of the law stricken by the courts.
Its getting to the point where I am seriously considering closing my Amazon account. I just don't like the way it does business any more. Can anyone recommend a good online bookseller in the UK? Is Waterstones any good? The Guardian is running a story [1] today about how Amazon forces publishers to cover the cost of 20% VAT (sales tax) on ebook sales, even though it only pays 3% to the Luxembourg government (where it…
I wouldn't be surprised if someone higher up sees her issues and activates her account. But I can't trust my money to a company where you could lose access to books worth thousands if you talk with the wrong person.
I've mailed amazon to hear if this is the norm.
I don't really expect a response, but hopefully a few 1000's emails like that will at least let them give the situation more attention ?
Could you ever imagine a local retailer in your area breaking and entering into your home, taking away all your books, and then not giving you a straightforward explanation as to why they did so? Me neither. Breaking and entering into someone else's physical property, and talking away their physical possessions without explanation is so obviously wrong and illegal! Yet that's pretty much what Amazon did to this poor…
If she'd been caught torrenting those same books in the US or a growing list of other countries, she'd face fines and court fees. Her Internet browser could be diverted to "anti-piracy education" sites; perhaps one day, she could be disconnected altogether.
Yet Amazon is allowed to arbitrarily remove those very same files with no explanation.
Pretty mindblowing how severely copyright has been perverted from its original intent.
Tangentially related, I am getting very, very tired of "customer service" departments using phrases like: "While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts, please know that we have reviewed your account on the basis of the information provided and regret to inform you that it will not be reopened." This happens more frequently: Google says this all the time, based on posts here; Am…
Companies have privacy obligations. If they inaccurately link you to a fraudulent user and then tell you all the activity of that fraudulent user, they've probably just broken the law. That's a specific example where it might not be legal but I agree that this is widespread and there are lots of things in the real world where it would be fine to tell you, but they choose not to. In my experience this is to protect in…
1) They don't want to get into a discussion which is likely to be time consuming. It's not just innocent people who appeal these things, often the most guilty are those who will most actively and vocally profess their innocence (in some cases up to and including going to court over it - c.f. the UK politician Jonathan Atkin).
The minute Amazon became willing to talk about this stuff they'd need a who bunch more people to start looking into each one in detail, review every claim and counter claim and so on, and they clearly don't think that that's a good use of their money.
2) The sorts of things they'd likely have to reveal are going to be the sorts of things people who are abusing the system want to know to get round it. Doing this would make their job harder.
Not saying that it's right that they take this approach, just I can see the reasons they do.
Could you ever imagine a local retailer in your area breaking and entering into your home, taking away all your books, and then not giving you a straightforward explanation as to why they did so? Me neither. Breaking and entering into someone else's physical property, and talking away their physical possessions without explanation is so obviously wrong and illegal! Yet that's pretty much what Amazon did to this poor…
It absolutely should be illegal to delete files from a device that is currently rented or owned by another party unless they give explicit permission. It should be wire fraud, just like hacking a server and forcing it to act in a way the owner does not desire.
I'm not the type to sound the drum saying that piracy isn't theft, but here it seems like it's trying to go both ways. It's property if you "steal" it and it isn't property if you've bought it.
Part of the problem is that the law hasn't kept up with the digital age. Lawyers/judges are notably technophobes (as a whole) which I'm sure has kept it back. Plus, generally speaking, technology enjoys a nice balance of good companies, competition, and plenty of release valves (ie, piracy). In general, these events are rare and that keeps the world from addressing the underlying issues - it just rarely comes up as an issue for someone and when it does, they could find a way (like piracy) to make themselves whole again (and I know it isn't equivalent, but piracy is often a lower barrier than legal action). There are a lot of other issues where people are more likely to become un-whole with less easy recourse.
Right now, issues of what a license to digital content offers is a bit in flux. I think a lot of us have a similar idea to what we think it should mean, but that doesn't mean that the legal system does or will acknowledge that. We sometimes get complacent because we're in a pretty positive industry and often times regulation can stifle innovation. However, this might be an area where we want a standard definition of term rental (for things like the Zune music service) and license purchase (like a Kindle Book) that would allow for things like re-selling and such. Otherwise, we'll likely continue to be beholden to the ToS that we all just click "accept" on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bypassing a technical copyright protection mechanism is a criminal offence, isn't it? I agree that it's the sane thing to do. "Back up your documents" is important advice.
Not in europe. Here, it's fair use.
Were I to make "unauthorized backups" of my games, Steam would shut down my account completely, by means of the "we can do what we want for no given reason" clause of the ToS.
I'm not even speculating, I've seem them do this - a guy owned L4D2 and complained to them that he had stability issues with singleplayer and had to play a cracked version while they got around to fix the network code. His entire account was banned for "piracy".
So fair use shmair use, I guess. You can still be punished by service termination and DRM lockouts even if they can't actually prosecute you.