Jim Gamma wrote:
My post is not "chock full of wrongness". I don't buy books from B&N, and have a Kindle, not a Nook. My comment was a general comment on the idea that you buy a 'license to read' rather than a copy of the actual content, and was based on the 'full refund' mentioned by GalaxyClass1701.
OK, so maybe I made an assumption based on the idea of a full refund that it implied removal of the books, but given that we've seen that sort of thing before, it's a logical assumption to make.
Yes, it is. B&N is not being sued. The customers who bought Agency eBooks from B&N are not getting a full refund. eBooks are not going to be pulled from WiFi enabled readers (in cases where that is possible). So how is any of what you posted actually correct?
All of it is, because it was a GENERAL OPINION. As in, a comment based upon the contents of the thread, and events that have happened before, rather than knowledge of this particular situation. At NO POINT did I state that books actually WERE being pulled in this instance, and I'm not the one who mentioned a full refund or B&N being sued first. I have to go on the information that's provided, and based on the information that's provided in the first post, my statements are 100% factual. OK, so maybe I should've made it clearer that I was making a general comment about e-book retailers' policies, but hey, we live and learn.