Do Amazon’s new license terms mean an end to Fair Use provisions?
Business & Technology | Unlocked music isn’t unlimited | Seattle Times Newspaper:
When Amazon.com launched its MP3 store last week, I thought the Seattle company had found the perfect formula for selling digital music.
Prices are lower than Apple’s iTunes, audio quality is generally higher and none of the songs is embedded with obnoxious copy-protection software. I wouldn’t be surprised if Amazon leapfrogs into first place in the downloadable-music business that Microsoft, Sony and others have struggled with for years.
Does that mean it’s time to say goodbye to the neighborhood record store?
I’d say no, after reading the fine print in Amazon’s user agreement. That’s when I decided to keep buying CDs, maybe forever.
[…]
Amazon’s contract says you “may copy, store, transfer and burn the Digital Content” for personal use. But then it goes further and specifies restrictions, saying you “agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, sub-license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content.”
I suspect this won’t hold up, if contested. And unless there are some hidden watermarks, I’m not sure how they can enforce it. They do store a Song ID in the metadata
but that just takes you to the track. I suppose a comparison of a ripped-from-CD file to a purchased one might reveal something.