We had to destroy private property in order to save it....
If Amazon revokes my license to an ebook or movie (like they did with 1984 a while back) do I get a refund?
Purchased Digital Content will generally continue to be available to you for download or streaming from the Service, as applicable, but may become unavailable due to potential content provider licensing restrictions and for other reasons, and Amazon will not be liable to you if Purchased Digital Content becomes unavailable for further download or streaming. You may download and store your own copy of Purchased Digital Content on a Compatible Device authorized for such download so that you can view that Purchased Digital Content if it becomes unavailable for further download or streaming from the Service.
More here, but it seems like their position is that you need to make your own backups for anything you "buy".
It appears, however, that Amazon can delete everything on your Kindle if it really wants to. My guess is that if Amazon has decided that you have done something wrong (as opposed to Disney deciding it does not want a video available for streaming), then you are out of luck.
With 1984, Amazon deleted the books and issued a refund, but then said that in future situations like that (where it did not actually have permission to distribute the book) it will not delete copies already bought.
I thought the phrase was 'You break it, you bought it"?
That said, perhaps if you do want to own it, you do have to break it (break the DRM, at any rate...)
In that case I think turn around is fair play -- if I can't own the product, then they shouldn't be able to own my money...
Especially in case of hardware, if I bought it I own it. If I have to "steal" it from myself in order to truly own it, well, I go for it. If it makes me a criminal, so what. Too many things are already illegal to care; I, for one, don't want to live my life as a scared lawyer.
We have the right to root (and audit and own and pwn) our own devices. So we have to sometimes do it extralegally. So what.
Isn't it why gods gave us soldering irons, Bus Pirate, cheap $10 chinese logic analyzers, and a plethora of other tools, just itching in our toolboxes to get their piece of action?
If you buy a computer at a court ordered bankruptcy sale, the data on the drive is of course subject to copyright.
The former owner may have agreed to a shrink/click EULA contract about reverse engineering, but you haven't.
So can you study code on the drive subject only to copyright law, without regard for any EULA?
Anything is open for study - be it natural or man-made. Whoever insists on making such distinctions, and puts up obstacles for people wanting to find out functionalities of things (whether it is a church official claiming autopsy is blasphemy (like they did to Da Vinci and others), or a lawyer insisting that a firmware binary is holy and dissecting it is also a blasphemy), should be publicly shot as a warning for others.
People insisting something should not be studied are not meant to be listened to. The world is ours for looking at, for listening to, for learning from, for playing with and modifying and bending to our will.
Yeah, but maybe "publicly shot" is a tad harsh.
How about a movement to put a click-thru EULA in front of all free content saying: "By clicking here you permanently and irrevocably agree not to impose EULAs on others (except for this one)".
Okay. If an execution won't fly (mmmmmm drones...), what about public ridicule? Or at least privately ignoring 'em?
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.