[frossie]

I don't know whether it is illegal. I am trying to figure out if this violates their TOS:

Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon"

Is that "or" a get-out clause? Because the first part seems to quite definitively rule out what they did.

[req2]

A similar case, in which a comma allowed an escape from a 5-year contract:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/article838...

[kschults]

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.

[jmtulloss]

Is a TOS a legally binding contract?