A privilege to temporarily view the content on devices that the seller approves, as long as they approve. This privilege can be revoked at any time, including for reasons having nothing to do with you (such as the seller having a fight with the copyright holder), and the content can be modified or removed at any moment. And you pay for that more than for the paper copy, because it sucks to be a sucker.
The most logical reading of the or is that you are allowed to display the content as many times as you want, and those displays may either be on the screen or in another manner that has been authorized by Amazon.
That said, I'm sure their lawyers will be able to spin it as meaning that they grant you the right to keep the copy as authorized by them.
>A limited copy, only for use in "operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones
also to:
>reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content
So not even family photos because you lose the right to keep them private.
It is actually the right to exclude others from making copies.
It is not an absolute right either. Even the most hardcore maximalists accept that there are some conditions under which that right does not exist, c.f. Jack Valenti's acknowledgement that it would be unconstitutional if the term of copyright was forever.
A simple rule of thumb from someone who is not a lawyer. Is the thing you wish to download the property of someone else, and have they granted you the right to view/use it. I think the answer is pretty clear here.
Its pretty simple actually, the owner of the copy 'right' expressly authorizes the copy being given to you. That is in accordance with the law. So any number of examples, you buy a book at the book store, you buy a DVD, you watch a movie at the theater, all of these actions result in a 'copy' of the work coming into your possession that is sanctioned by the owner of the right.
Any illegal copy is one in which the owner hasn't sanctioned transferring a copy to you.
Copyright law carves out specific exemptions for lending libraries and the First Sale doctrine, part of the unified commercial code (UCC) gives you the right to transfer your copy to a third party as long as no new copies are created (so you no longer have a copy).
Note I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
In the US context-
A) Copyright terms have increased 5 fold over the centuries.
B) The Supreme has ruled, at least in many contexts, that creating a backup copy of a work is fair use. I believe generally this applies so long as the backups are not sold or distributed separately from the original.
So, at least in some context this is false- the reader's right is to the information contained within the physical copy, not just the physical copy itself.
In Switzerland we pay a premium on every bit of storage sold (devices, disks etc.) and have the right to make a private copy. So you are allowed to copy any media you bought or rented. This law also makes it legal to download any media from the internet. But you aren't allowed to distribute it so torrents and upload the media, but you are allowed to give a copy to friends and family.
While it has its problems like why do I pay this on a HDD, SSD, computer or smartphone that I exclusively use for work? It definitely has its upsides as in making a backup copy of your media and circumventing copy protection isn't in some legal gray area or straight up illegal.
Edit: There are attempts to make this law more restrictive and they succeeded in offering products to circumvent copy protection illegal. But you are allowed to use them to exercise the rights above.
There are a variety of reasons that you can have a copy of a copyrighted work it a way the copyright holder didn't intend, such as time shifting or media shifting.
reply