Sign In
Register
Help
I don't buy much from Amazon anyways, and I love the Delicious Library, so I guess in my world, Amazon will get the boot. LOL
Its their right, no doubt, no arguement there... Their API, they can grant access to whom ever they want. But its like Goodyear telling the rubber tree company it gets it rubber from to make the tires that it can't use "Goodyear's" name on their client list. I am sure Delicious Library ports allot of people to Amazon... And if Amazon or Delicious had a way of tracking that information it would be interesting to see how much it dwindles now that Amazon has cut off the Library in the APP Store...
If it was much at all, I think it will be back with full Amazon support, because lets face it, in this economy if someone was bringing customers into my store for "free", I certainly wouldn't have them Banned from the store, especially if I didn't have to share any profit or percentages.
Delicious Library iPhone app yanked from App Store
MultiQuote
#30
mdawson 
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,803
- Joined: 31-August 04
Posted 08 July 2009 - 03:35 AM
>> rab777hp wrote:
>>
>> Now this is a classic example of a legal and proper removal, if they want to use the APIs for amazon, then they have to follow amazon's rules, it makes perfect sense, they don't have to give out the APIs, but if they do, it makes sense to not have any competition, its their site/service.
>
>
I caught that, too. Although I have to say that I am not the least bit surprised. Psystar apologists follow the same logic as everyone else that bemoans the business model that Apple has adopted:
bq. No one complains about other high-end companies charging a premium for their products, but when it is Apple, they change the rules. No one feels the need to lambaste other niche companies and label them as beleaguered or dying because they have a small market share, but when it is Apple, they change the rules. No one complains when several other OEMs in other markets make system software exclusively for their hardware, but when it is Apple, they change the rules. When other companies are more profitable than the competition every single quarter 5 years running despite the economic climate of the past 8 years, people do not feel the need to say that the company is going to fail because they choose to not cater to bottom feeders that refuse to pay for anything even when there is no recession; but when it is Apple, they change the rules. No one launches into a crusade to support those illegally misusing the intellectual property of another company, but when it is Apple, they change the rules.
I, like you, have watched this same pattern play out since the late 1980s. Apple has characteristics that when applied to any other company would warrant the status of that which most people would aspire to be able to obtain. Yet a complete reversal of that mindset is applied exclusively to Apple under the exact same conditions. The difference is that the traits for which the naysayers often bemoan Apple can be legally or economically justified. There is no justification for the pricing of products from companies such as Gucci, Prada, DKNY, et al., but people do not seem to feel the need to berate them for overpricing?and designer companies are charging consumers excessively just for the name?or tell them that they cannot prosecute phonies profiteering from their brand identity.
>>
>> Now this is a classic example of a legal and proper removal, if they want to use the APIs for amazon, then they have to follow amazon's rules, it makes perfect sense, they don't have to give out the APIs, but if they do, it makes sense to not have any competition, its their site/service.
>
Quote
Wondercow replied
>
Quote
And yet when it comes to Apple's rules for their IP...
I caught that, too. Although I have to say that I am not the least bit surprised. Psystar apologists follow the same logic as everyone else that bemoans the business model that Apple has adopted:
bq. No one complains about other high-end companies charging a premium for their products, but when it is Apple, they change the rules. No one feels the need to lambaste other niche companies and label them as beleaguered or dying because they have a small market share, but when it is Apple, they change the rules. No one complains when several other OEMs in other markets make system software exclusively for their hardware, but when it is Apple, they change the rules. When other companies are more profitable than the competition every single quarter 5 years running despite the economic climate of the past 8 years, people do not feel the need to say that the company is going to fail because they choose to not cater to bottom feeders that refuse to pay for anything even when there is no recession; but when it is Apple, they change the rules. No one launches into a crusade to support those illegally misusing the intellectual property of another company, but when it is Apple, they change the rules.
I, like you, have watched this same pattern play out since the late 1980s. Apple has characteristics that when applied to any other company would warrant the status of that which most people would aspire to be able to obtain. Yet a complete reversal of that mindset is applied exclusively to Apple under the exact same conditions. The difference is that the traits for which the naysayers often bemoan Apple can be legally or economically justified. There is no justification for the pricing of products from companies such as Gucci, Prada, DKNY, et al., but people do not seem to feel the need to berate them for overpricing?and designer companies are charging consumers excessively just for the name?or tell them that they cannot prosecute phonies profiteering from their brand identity.
#31
Counsel
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 08-July 08
Posted 08 July 2009 - 04:31 AM
I have to agree that owners of property (whether real property or not) have a right to determine how their property is used (or not used).
The agreement is clear, and I hope everyone realizes there is no "entitlement" for people to "have what they want" regardless of whether it is free or whether it costs money...
Downloading a song that you don't obtain a license to have is as illegal as walking into a music store and stealing a CD... Why do people have a hard time understanding this idea?
Read the license you agree to PRIOR to agreeing to the terms. Otherwise, you are bound by the terms. If you don't like the terms, don't use the product/property. It really is that simple...
The agreement is clear, and I hope everyone realizes there is no "entitlement" for people to "have what they want" regardless of whether it is free or whether it costs money...
Downloading a song that you don't obtain a license to have is as illegal as walking into a music store and stealing a CD... Why do people have a hard time understanding this idea?
Read the license you agree to PRIOR to agreeing to the terms. Otherwise, you are bound by the terms. If you don't like the terms, don't use the product/property. It really is that simple...
#32
Counsel
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 08-July 08
Posted 08 July 2009 - 04:39 AM
I bet the license states they can update the license at any time...without warning/notification to the user.
I am not going to get into a debate as to whether that is fair (it isn't), but it is (currentlyl) legal...(in most jurisdictions...).
What is important to know is that Amazon can control "their property" whether or not the API is used. Amazon can change the organization of thier data, the method for accessing the data, etc. without warning to the general public--all of which may make the application not function as intended. Amazon owes no "legal right" to application owners (without a contract) to allow "joe public" to use Amazon's data...
It matters not if the thief was selling my product -- profitting me and the theif. What matters is that I can stop the thief from selling my product because they have no licensing agreement with me to sell my product. Ask someone who goes to an Aveda salon... Protection of "property rights" is a good thing even if we are, at times, affected in a negative fashion.
You don't suggest that everyone should live in your house for free, obtain food, from you, for free, or have access to your personal property, like movies, music, and other items for free... Why do you expect it in return?
Whether it benefits you is a "red herring" that distracts from the central premise--can people control who accesses their property when no contract exists between the parties...
Can I access your blog, post your content (perhaps word for word), and have the ability to prevent you from stopping my activity just because I sent page hits to your site that generate revenue for you? I think the issue is that I am using your property without a license/contract--something the owner of the property can control.
Just my $0.02...
I am not going to get into a debate as to whether that is fair (it isn't), but it is (currentlyl) legal...(in most jurisdictions...).
What is important to know is that Amazon can control "their property" whether or not the API is used. Amazon can change the organization of thier data, the method for accessing the data, etc. without warning to the general public--all of which may make the application not function as intended. Amazon owes no "legal right" to application owners (without a contract) to allow "joe public" to use Amazon's data...
It matters not if the thief was selling my product -- profitting me and the theif. What matters is that I can stop the thief from selling my product because they have no licensing agreement with me to sell my product. Ask someone who goes to an Aveda salon... Protection of "property rights" is a good thing even if we are, at times, affected in a negative fashion.
You don't suggest that everyone should live in your house for free, obtain food, from you, for free, or have access to your personal property, like movies, music, and other items for free... Why do you expect it in return?
Whether it benefits you is a "red herring" that distracts from the central premise--can people control who accesses their property when no contract exists between the parties...
Can I access your blog, post your content (perhaps word for word), and have the ability to prevent you from stopping my activity just because I sent page hits to your site that generate revenue for you? I think the issue is that I am using your property without a license/contract--something the owner of the property can control.
Just my $0.02...
#33
zenwave
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 53
- Joined: 02-October 07
Posted 08 July 2009 - 05:49 AM
JPF said:
So what happens if you already had the app, will it disappear the next time you sync ?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think iTunes syncs with the App Store to see which of your local apps are approved.
In any case, I synced this morning and DL is still there!
#34
hayesk
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 978
- Joined: 07-August 04
Posted 08 July 2009 - 06:14 AM
rab777hp said:
DId you read the agreement? It explicitly says, its okay for desktop- but for mobile- no! Why? Because on the desktop there's no point in not allowing devs to use the APIs, on the mobile world, completely different. What amazon is saying is, if you want to be the dominating app for that niche, then come out with your own revolutionary internet service and make your own app.
Gee, and I thought the purpose of Amazon was to sell books. I'm not sure how restricting the API is going to help them sell more books.
Maybe Barnes & Noble should put out an API.
#35
doglesby
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,057
- Joined: 31-August 04
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:35 AM
Counsel said:
I bet the license states they can update the license at any time...without warning/notification to the user.
I am not going to get into a debate as to whether that is fair (it isn't), but it is (currentlyl) legal...(in most jurisdictions...).
I am not going to get into a debate as to whether that is fair (it isn't), but it is (currentlyl) legal...(in most jurisdictions...).
I'm no lawyer, but it is one thing to say "stop using this API if you are using it on mobile platforms." It is something else entirely to say "all the data you downloaded using our APIs according to the restrictions to date must now be removed from the mobile platforms with which you have been syncing for ages." You can say "stop doing something." But to require undoing what was allowed may very well be illegal. That, by the way, is the first time I have ever brought the law into this. All I said is that Amazon should provide an explanation.
Quote
Whether it benefits you is a "red herring" that distracts from the central premise--can people control who accesses their property when no contract exists between the parties...
Actually, the red herring is most of your comment. None of which applies to this discussion.
#36
tewha
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 191
- Joined: 12-December 07
Posted 08 July 2009 - 07:53 AM
This is just a guess, but this is so stupid that I expect Amazon is avoiding a patent here with "...on mobile devices" in the wording. People go way out of their way to sue Amazon over patents, so if this is the case it's probably justified.
#37
doglesby
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,057
- Joined: 31-August 04
Posted 08 July 2009 - 08:07 AM
tewha said:
This is just a guess, but this is so stupid that I expect Amazon is avoiding a patent here with "...on mobile devices" in the wording. People go way out of their way to sue Amazon over patents, so if this is the case it's probably justified.
More like a copyright issue (no process or device involved, just data). If Amazon were concerned that they don't have the necessary rights for copyrighted information on products (synopses, for example), that might explain this issue. I don't know enough about copyright, but it seems a rather blunt tool to ban Delicious Library if synopses are the problem. Just restrict what information can be synced. Of course, if that includes the title, that would be a deal breaker for Delicious Monster.
#38
Counsel
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 08-July 08
Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:14 AM
Amazon does not own the copyright to the book's title, ISBN, etc. What they do own is control over their data. Copyright may play a part, where appropriate. However, the issue IS what can Amazon do legally regarding their property...
I don't know exactly how the application works, but if Delicious accesses Amazon.com web-servers using the API, then Amazon has rights they can enforce. If Delicious is accessing the Amazon web-site as any other member of the public can access the site, Amazon can change how the information is accessed, stored, etc, to place roadblocks for the app to serve up the data to users.
Your original post stated
"Because the app they
pulled doesn't use the API. Because that restriction was added after
Delicious Library started using the API--seriously restricting an app
that has used the API by the book and to Amazon's benefit for years."
My questions include:
Does it use the API or not? If it does use the API, Amazon can control, through the license/agreement, who uses the data and how it is used (if it is used).
If the API is not used, access to the data (if stored on Amazon servers) can be controlled by Amazon.
Whether it benefits Amazon or not IS irrelevant to whether Amazon can control access to their data (it might not be a smart business move, but that is a different story...) or to the use of their API.
We, the public, have no "right" to use either their data or their API--just as we can buy the DVD of "The X-Men" and yet, legally (under the DMCA),might have no right to copy that to a digital file for our own viewing...
"Good for business," "legal," and "fair" are mutually exclusive terms.
Fishy or not, that is how it is.
I don't know exactly how the application works, but if Delicious accesses Amazon.com web-servers using the API, then Amazon has rights they can enforce. If Delicious is accessing the Amazon web-site as any other member of the public can access the site, Amazon can change how the information is accessed, stored, etc, to place roadblocks for the app to serve up the data to users.
Your original post stated
"Because the app they
pulled doesn't use the API. Because that restriction was added after
Delicious Library started using the API--seriously restricting an app
that has used the API by the book and to Amazon's benefit for years."
My questions include:
Does it use the API or not? If it does use the API, Amazon can control, through the license/agreement, who uses the data and how it is used (if it is used).
If the API is not used, access to the data (if stored on Amazon servers) can be controlled by Amazon.
Whether it benefits Amazon or not IS irrelevant to whether Amazon can control access to their data (it might not be a smart business move, but that is a different story...) or to the use of their API.
We, the public, have no "right" to use either their data or their API--just as we can buy the DVD of "The X-Men" and yet, legally (under the DMCA),might have no right to copy that to a digital file for our own viewing...
"Good for business," "legal," and "fair" are mutually exclusive terms.
Fishy or not, that is how it is.
#39
doglesby
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,057
- Joined: 31-August 04
Posted 08 July 2009 - 10:40 AM
Counsel said:
Amazon does not own the copyright to the book's title, ISBN, etc.
Exactly, which is why they may be restricted to the extent that their website and API "publish" that information. If they require a license, it may not cover mobile devices.
Quote
I don't know exactly how the application works, but if Delicious accesses Amazon.com web-servers using the API, then Amazon has rights they can enforce. If Delicious is accessing the Amazon web-site as any other member of the public can access the site, Amazon can change how the information is accessed, stored, etc, to place roadblocks for the app to serve up the data to users.
No one is arguing that Amazon must do anything with regards to the API or data storage and access. Amazon should do what is most efficient for Amazon.
Quote
Your original post stated
"Because the app they
pulled doesn't use the API. Because that restriction was added after
Delicious Library started using the API--seriously restricting an app
that has used the API by the book and to Amazon's benefit for years."
My questions include:
Does it use the API or not? If it does use the API, Amazon can control, through the license/agreement, who uses the data and how it is used (if it is used).
"Because the app they
pulled doesn't use the API. Because that restriction was added after
Delicious Library started using the API--seriously restricting an app
that has used the API by the book and to Amazon's benefit for years."
My questions include:
Does it use the API or not? If it does use the API, Amazon can control, through the license/agreement, who uses the data and how it is used (if it is used).
The answer is in the first line. Delicious Library the iPhone app does not use the API. Delicious Library the desktop app does. The desktop app is not the issue.
Quote
If the API is not used, access to the data (if stored on Amazon servers) can be controlled by Amazon.
The data the iPhone app accesses is on the user's computer. Some of it may have been downloaded from Amazon.
Quote
Whether it benefits Amazon or not IS irrelevant to whether Amazon can control access to their data (it might not be a smart business move, but that is a different story...) or to the use of their API.
No one is saying otherwise (hence the reason I dismissed that argument as a red herring).
We, the public, have no "right" to use either their data or their API--just as we can buy the DVD of "The X-Men" and yet, legally (under the DMCA),might have no right to copy that to a digital file for our own viewing...
You are suggesting that Amazon merely licenses the data and retains full ownership of it. I'm not certain that was the case before. I'm not certain they can own information that they obtained elsewhere. As the provider of the data, they certainly can control access to it, but once you have the publisher's synopsis, ISBN, etc, it's not clear to me what claim Amazon has over that information.
"Good for business," "legal," and "fair" are mutually exclusive terms.
I think you need to check on the definition of mutually exclusive. What is legal can (and should be) fair and good for business. Again, I never made a legal argument until you did. What I said is that Amazon has done something despicable and counter to its own interests, and it should explain how this decision makes a lick of sense.
#40
Counsel
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 08-July 08
Posted 08 July 2009 - 11:04 AM
You state that
"I think you need to
check on the definition of mutually exclusive. What is legal can (and
should be) fair and good for business. Again, I never made a legal
argument until you did. What I said is that Amazon has done something
despicable and counter to its own interests, and it should explain how
this decision makes a lick of sense. "
Let me help you understand the definition of mutually exclusive due to the context in which it is used in my post...
Just because something is fair or "good for business" does not make it legal or illegal. We can argue definitions, if you want... However, I suggest you read the license that states (perhaps in 4E) "You will not, without our express prior written approval requested via this link
, use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site
or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or
other handheld device. "
So, the desktop application is legal, but the iphone application may not be SINCE the application is designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device. It does not say you can use the application since the data is stored on the desktop. The issue is that the application is designed and/or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device. It is irrelefant where the data is stored. Remember, the use of the Amazon's "Content" is "ruled" by the license...
Since the data is designed to be used with a mobile phone or other handheld device, the application is in "violation" of the terms of the license, and Amazon can have it removed... It makes no difference if it is bad for business, and I think it IS bad for business. Go see the Phonesaber application at Macbox...
If I have a valid license to watch a DVD, that I have purchased, on my laptop computer, I may not (according to the DMCA) be permitted to make a digital copy of that movie for viewing on my iPhone (unless I can connect a DVD drive to my iPhone or otherwise meet the license requirements...).
Perhaps Delicoius should contact B&N or other source... My comment was that complaining about what Amazon has a legal right to restrict isn't helping... Rather, if the developer got an agreement with B&N, Amazon might come back around...
"Fair" is something I shoot for, but what is fair for Amazon (in their reasoning anyway) is to limit use of their Content. Their limiting of that data is legal regadless of whether or not it is "good for business" or "good for you."
"I think you need to
check on the definition of mutually exclusive. What is legal can (and
should be) fair and good for business. Again, I never made a legal
argument until you did. What I said is that Amazon has done something
despicable and counter to its own interests, and it should explain how
this decision makes a lick of sense. "
Let me help you understand the definition of mutually exclusive due to the context in which it is used in my post...
Just because something is fair or "good for business" does not make it legal or illegal. We can argue definitions, if you want... However, I suggest you read the license that states (perhaps in 4E) "You will not, without our express prior written approval requested via this link
, use any Product Advertising Content on or in connection with any site
or application designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or
other handheld device. "
So, the desktop application is legal, but the iphone application may not be SINCE the application is designed or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device. It does not say you can use the application since the data is stored on the desktop. The issue is that the application is designed and/or intended for use with a mobile phone or other handheld device. It is irrelefant where the data is stored. Remember, the use of the Amazon's "Content" is "ruled" by the license...
Since the data is designed to be used with a mobile phone or other handheld device, the application is in "violation" of the terms of the license, and Amazon can have it removed... It makes no difference if it is bad for business, and I think it IS bad for business. Go see the Phonesaber application at Macbox...
If I have a valid license to watch a DVD, that I have purchased, on my laptop computer, I may not (according to the DMCA) be permitted to make a digital copy of that movie for viewing on my iPhone (unless I can connect a DVD drive to my iPhone or otherwise meet the license requirements...).
Perhaps Delicoius should contact B&N or other source... My comment was that complaining about what Amazon has a legal right to restrict isn't helping... Rather, if the developer got an agreement with B&N, Amazon might come back around...
"Fair" is something I shoot for, but what is fair for Amazon (in their reasoning anyway) is to limit use of their Content. Their limiting of that data is legal regadless of whether or not it is "good for business" or "good for you."
#41
doglesby
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,057
- Joined: 31-August 04
Posted 08 July 2009 - 11:47 AM
Counsel said:
You state that
"I think you need to
check on the definition of mutually exclusive. What is legal can (and
should be) fair and good for business.
Let me help you understand the definition of mutually exclusive due to the context in which it is used in my post...
Just because something is fair or "good for business" does not make it legal or illegal. We can argue definitions, if you want...
"I think you need to
check on the definition of mutually exclusive. What is legal can (and
should be) fair and good for business.
Let me help you understand the definition of mutually exclusive due to the context in which it is used in my post...
Just because something is fair or "good for business" does not make it legal or illegal. We can argue definitions, if you want...
This is not a matter of context. Mutually Exclusive: of or pertaining to a situation involving two or more events, possibilities, etc., in which the occurrence of one precludes the occurrence of the other. "Dead" and "Not Dead" are mutually exclusive states (at least they should be, which is why Schroedinger's cat poses such a problem).
The terms are not mutually exclusive. What you meant to say is they are not equivalent. Which is funny because you're the only one confusing them by turning arguments about fairness and business sense into legal arguments.
#42
Counsel
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 24
- Joined: 08-July 08
Posted 08 July 2009 - 12:31 PM
Logically, I was arguing that only one of the three ("Good for business," "legal," and "fair" ) was possible in this instance ;p But, fair enough if you are looking at two options that are mutally exclusive....
Getting back to the original issue...
You stated
"This is insane. According to what they are telling him, he can't use the
API on the desktop version to pull information on books/CDs/DVDs/etc.
and sync that information to the iPhone app. At the very least, they
need to offer some reason for this. Delicious Library has never done
anything but direct more business to Amazon."
I again reply...
Amazon's action isn't "insane," you just disagree with their decision. Applications can use the API on the desktop, but an application can not pull the information "content" if it is intended for use on a mobile phone or similar device (according to the license). Amazon "could" offer a reason (I think it would make good business public relations), but they do not have to offer any reason.
Again, the issue of "directing business" is irrelevant to the license condition. Psystar directs sales to Apple via OS/X sales, yet the use of OS/X on non-apple hardware may violate the license...
See the posting http://alanquatermai...ary-for-iphone. This is why phonesaber and Delicious are no longer in the App store...
You can continue to look for a reason, and I wish you luck finding it.
However, I guess you are going to end up wihtout an answer that
provides any satisfaction or understanding except that "because Amazon
can."
We all think Amazon made a bad decision... However, you might as well understand the issue(s) rather than just supporting an argument that their action is "insane." They are entitled to act any way they want. If you want to let the actions of others so affect your mood, who am I to stop you...
Getting back to the original issue...
You stated
"This is insane. According to what they are telling him, he can't use the
API on the desktop version to pull information on books/CDs/DVDs/etc.
and sync that information to the iPhone app. At the very least, they
need to offer some reason for this. Delicious Library has never done
anything but direct more business to Amazon."
I again reply...
Amazon's action isn't "insane," you just disagree with their decision. Applications can use the API on the desktop, but an application can not pull the information "content" if it is intended for use on a mobile phone or similar device (according to the license). Amazon "could" offer a reason (I think it would make good business public relations), but they do not have to offer any reason.
Again, the issue of "directing business" is irrelevant to the license condition. Psystar directs sales to Apple via OS/X sales, yet the use of OS/X on non-apple hardware may violate the license...
See the posting http://alanquatermai...ary-for-iphone. This is why phonesaber and Delicious are no longer in the App store...
You can continue to look for a reason, and I wish you luck finding it.
However, I guess you are going to end up wihtout an answer that
provides any satisfaction or understanding except that "because Amazon
can."
We all think Amazon made a bad decision... However, you might as well understand the issue(s) rather than just supporting an argument that their action is "insane." They are entitled to act any way they want. If you want to let the actions of others so affect your mood, who am I to stop you...
