amicus_curious <ACDC@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> "Ezekiel" <zeke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:h3v42q$kfo$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
>> So much for "the cloud" and having some 3rd party store all of your data.
>>
> It wasn't so voluntary on the part of Amazon since they were threatened by a
> copyright infringement suit that they could not defend. They had no choice.
> Even if you have data controlled by your own IT network, it is subject to
> subpoena by prosecutors or plaintiffs as the case may be, so avoiding the
> cloud doesn't help much in that regard.
So let me get this straight...
Let's say a publisher decided to withdraw a dead tree book from publication.
Would amazon send 'round the bailiffs to reclaim every single copy sold?
Or would they simply stop distributing it?
There WAS no copyright infringement. It said in the article "The publishers
changed their minds" which means the publishers HAD granted permission and
that permission should NOT have been withdrawn from the people who'd already
BOUGHT the sodding e-books.
Changing their minds is withdrawal of permission and should ONLY affect
amazon's SUBSEQUENT sales.
--
| spike1@xxxxxxxxxx,uk | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?" |
| Andrew Halliwell BSc | |
| in | "I think so brain, but this time, you control |
| Computer Science | the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..." |
|
|
