# Kindle Lawsuit



## stinsmom (Feb 20, 2009)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_en_ot/us_tec_amazon_kindle_lawsuit

Thoughts??


----------



## Sweety18 (Feb 14, 2009)

I saw that a week ago on the business channel.  Don't really have any thoughts on it but I do think amazon should not have done that.


----------



## mom133d (aka Liz) (Nov 25, 2008)

I just read that. Whether Amazon should or shouldn't have deleted - i can see both sides.

This was my favorite part of the article:


> His notes on the book were "rendered useless because they no longer referenced the relevant parts of the book," according to the lawsuit.


really? The Kindle edition is that different from the DTB that your notes are now useless? And I'm not sure that eBooks citations are accepted yet.


----------



## stinsmom (Feb 20, 2009)

mom133d said:


> I just read that. Whether Amazon should or shouldn't have deleted - i can see both sides.
> 
> This was my favorite part of the article:
> really? The Kindle edition is that different from the DTB that your notes are now useless? And I'm not sure that eBooks citations are accepted yet.


That's what I was thinking. Can it really be that different?? I believe we live in a sue happy society anyway, but seriously. Stuff happens. I think it sucks that it was deleted, but is it really worth suing over?


----------



## akpak (Mar 5, 2009)

/facepalm

Seriously. He couldn't just buy a legit copy and continue on?


----------



## RamTheHammer (Apr 17, 2009)

It's the modern version of my dog ate my homework!

He could have recovered but choice not to. Silly law suit if you ask me.


----------



## Guest (Jul 31, 2009)

And if this case ends up in front of the wrong judge, I guarantee you it will be the independent Kindle authors that get bit in the ass because of this.  Because Amazon will find itself in a position for being legally liable for unauthorized copies uploaded by third parties, which will result in one or all of the following actions:

1. Individual authors no longer being allowed to upload content without pre-approval
2. Requiring a waiting period to upload content in order for it to be verified
3. Fees levied on individual authors to cover the cost of verification


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

The lawsuit is all about the $$$.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

/\ /\ /\  As are most these days


----------



## modkindle (Feb 17, 2009)

as a former lawyer, I am sort of glad this has happened. The issue of what rights and responsibilities Amazon has when they sell copyrighted content without the appropriate rights is not going to go away. It was always going to need a court to sort it out since the technology is new. Let's just get it over with. If it wasn't this kid suing, it would have been the Orwell estate suing to make Amazon delete them.


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> And if this case ends up in front of the wrong judge, I guarantee you it will be the independent Kindle authors that get bit in the ass because of this. Because Amazon will find itself in a position for being legally liable for unauthorized copies uploaded by third parties, which will result in one or all of the following actions:
> 
> 1. Individual authors no longer being allowed to upload content without pre-approval
> 2. Requiring a waiting period to upload content in order for it to be verified
> 3. Fees levied on individual authors to cover the cost of verification


I'm amazed these things aren't already in place. They should have been from the start.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

I think it's ridiculous. Suppose he'd bought a leather-bound first edition autographed copy of the book for $10,000 (just for example ) from SomeDood on Craigslist. He takes notes in a notebook. A few days later the cops show up at his door with evidence proving the book had been stolen from First Editions R Us downtown, and they were going to take possession of it, process it as evidence, and return it to the rightful owner. Can he sue because his notes are now  useless? Can he scream and yell that he paid for it and he should be allowed to keep it? Well, he can - but should any reasonable judge allow the suit to proceed and does the kid accomplish anything except looking like a complete assh*le? Doubtful. This whole thing is much ado about nothing.


----------



## ellesu (Feb 19, 2009)

In my opinon, more laws muddy the situation. Why do we have to go to court to solve something that could be solved so much easier -- not to mention, so much less expensive? Sure, someone _could_ win some bucks, but where's the common sense in this?


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

My thought on this lawsuit is that it did not come from the plaintiff, who I know had posted something about this on the internet immediately after it happened. I think the lawyer sought him out as the plaintiff of a class-action suit. It's not about restitution, it's about making a boatload of cash for this lawyer.


----------



## cheerio (May 16, 2009)

I just saw this on yahoo and i can't believe it is a 17 year old, it takes balls to do that. At least they understand that when you pay for something you should get to keep it.


----------



## The Atomic Bookworm (Jul 20, 2009)

Let's not forget something, gang: Amazon did not delete (and reimbursed people for) _every_ copy of 1984 that was purchased... only the copies of an edition that was uploaded and not approved by the Orwell estate were involved in this mess. Yes, they should've warned people first, and that's a matter for the courts which (hopefully) will be solved to the benefit of the consumer

"1984" is still available at Amazon.com in a Kindle Edition, and he could've downloaded another copy into his Kindle and go from there... but, if his notes are "useless because they don't reference to the original material", were his notes any good in the first place? Seriously. When I had to do the exercise that he describes, we were told to write down the passage we were talking about _before_ talking about the passage itself.

This kid's problem is not that "my dog ate my homework". His problem is that he became so dependent on technological solutions that he has made no "backup plans" (literal and otherwise) in case technology failed.


----------



## RamTheHammer (Apr 17, 2009)

cheerio said:


> I just saw this on yahoo and i can't believe it is a 17 year old, it takes balls to do that. At least they understand that when you pay for something you should get to keep it.


Absolutely untrue! If you buy a stolen car you do not keep it. If you buy stolen jewelery you do not keep it. You have no rights to stolen goods regardless of how you received them!


----------



## Rasputina (May 6, 2009)

If Amazon had the steps in place to make sure someone offering a book for sale has the rights to do so it never would have happened.


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

Rasputina said:


> If Amazon had the steps in place to make sure someone offering a book for sale has the rights to do so it never would have happened.


True, but how would one go about doing this? Until the rightful copyright holder complains it would IMO be very hard to do.

Is anyone aware of any kind of a complete centralized database listing current copyright holders? I have serious doubts any kind of thing exists.

Edit to add:

At any rate I think it is the responsibility of the copyright holder to protect their work, not the middleman.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

On many books, no one is certain who has the electronic rights, so I don't know how this could be accomplished at this time.


----------



## The Atomic Bookworm (Jul 20, 2009)

Forster said:


> Is anyone aware of any kind of a complete centralized database listing current copyright holders? I have serious doubts any kind of thing exists.


http://www.copyright.gov/records/

From 1978 onwards, and going backwards as time/money/budget/politics allow it.


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

The Atomic Bookworm said:


> http://www.copyright.gov/records/
> 
> From 1978 onwards, and going backwards as time/money/budget/politics allow it.


And one can make head or tails out of the data there?


----------



## JCBeam (Feb 27, 2009)

webhill,

I agree with your post in your scenario; however, buying from a private seller on craigslist or eBay for that matter, where you pretty much are on your own in terms of authenticity is not the same as buying from a major corporation such as Amazon, who is expected to have all it's ducks in a row--and that's not to say I agree with the lawsuit either.


----------



## Magna (Jul 28, 2009)

Here are the terms of use for the Kindle:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530

Based on the agreement, I predict this case will quietly settle. If it goes ahead, I predict it will be decided in confidential arbitration in Seattle and that both plaintiffs will lose. Or, if they win they'll get no more than they paid for their Kindles.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

The plaintiff, Justin.










Personally, I think he should spend more time on his homework and less time on frivolous lawsuits. My 2 cents.

L


----------



## akw4572 (Nov 3, 2008)

My take on it was his notes were in the Kindle itself, i.e., he made the notes within the ebook, while reading it.


----------



## FSkornia (Feb 22, 2009)

Forster said:


> And one can make head or tails out of the data there?


Actually doesn't look too complicated to me. You enter in a book title, it spits out who the copyright claimant is, when the copyright was registered and when the piece was published.


----------



## suicidepact (May 17, 2009)

Not sure if this this was posted yet.

http://www.neowin.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=805060


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

akw4572 said:


> My take on it was his notes were in the Kindle itself, i.e., he made the notes within the ebook, while reading it.


But it does not get stored in the e-book file (.azw, .azw1).... Bookmarks and annotations go into a separate .mpb file that is created when you open an e-book.


----------



## ak rain (Nov 15, 2008)

its on the front page of SF Gate too
sylvia 
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/richmond/detail?entry_id=44653

it did put a picture on page 1 of a k2


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

FSkornia said:


> Actually doesn't look too complicated to me. You enter in a book title, it spits out who the copyright claimant is, when the copyright was registered and when the piece was published.


Animal Farm - 386 Hits http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?ti=1,0&Search_Arg=Animal%20Farm&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=quiz6MTNh61iCD3VdeAdLS10Qvf&SEQ=20090801002922&SID=1

1984 - 1585 Hits http://cocatalog.loc.gov/cgi-bin/Pwebrecon.cgi?ti=1,0&Search_Arg=1984&Search_Code=TALL&CNT=25&PID=ui7WJsqjUR2HABNtIApCMxthce&SEQ=20090801003021&SID=2

Not a whole heck of a lot of detail when you click on the individual entries, let alone who may or may not own the digital rights.

Doesn't look real easy to me.


----------



## suicidepact (May 17, 2009)

Well spotted ak rain, nice one. I referenced that that forum because I'm also active there and and I was a surprised about the lack of knowledge about Kindles on that site.


----------



## suicidepact (May 17, 2009)

Whoops, it looks like there already is a topic on this, just in a different area:
http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,12082.msg231820/topicseen.html#new
My apologies!


----------



## Shizu (Oct 27, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> But it does not get stored in the e-book file (.azw, .azw1).... Bookmarks and annotations go into a separate .mpb file that is created when you open an e-book.


Can you open the .mpb file without the book? I notice that the notes of the book correspond to that particular book. When I changed the metadata of that book and reload to the kindle with same file name, the notes were gone. I had to start all over.


----------



## Bren S. (May 10, 2009)

Oh what a surprise,another frivolous lawsuit.


----------



## legalbs2 (May 27, 2009)

Rasputina said:


> If Amazon had the steps in place to make sure someone offering a book for sale has the rights to do so it never would have happened.


I agree. If I bought a book from someone on Craig's List and did not get proof the person owned the book and had the right to sell it and the cops came and took it from me because it was stolen, guess what I could be prosecuted for receipt of stolen property.

Amazon is no different. They should have verified that the book they put on the internet for sale came from a legal owner. Good for the 17 year old. Bad Amazon. They should have known better.

I bet Amazon won't do that again.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

Yes...so I am going to merge these threads together.

Leslie
Global Mod


----------



## suicidepact (May 17, 2009)

Thanks Leslie. I appreciate that. I noticed the lawsuit the thread I started was a different lawsuit, but hadn't found this thread until after posting my thread.


----------



## The Atomic Bookworm (Jul 20, 2009)

Forster said:


> And one can make head or tails out of the data there?


Only after you learn how to read the data... which you can learn at the "Tips" page.

I confess: Copyright.Gov/records is NOT the most general public-friendly site there is... but consider this: you have to have a record for EVERY edition of a copyrighted work. Every book, every audio tape, every audio CD, every Braille edition... you get the idea.

This is why you got 100's of hits for Animal Farm and 1984: because they have been republished so much.

Furthermore: both Animal Farm and 1984 were copyrighted pre-1978. You won't find the original copyright information in this database (yet). You'd have to go to their brick-and-mortar Library Card Catalog to find it.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

I think that the suit is frivolous but modkindle brought up a good point. The decisions made by the courts over the case will make Amazon's position, as well as ours, much clearer.



webhill said:


> I think it's ridiculous. Suppose he'd bought a leather-bound first edition autographed copy of the book for $10,000 (just for example ) from SomeDood on Craigslist. He takes notes in a notebook. A few days later the cops show up at his door with evidence proving the book had been stolen from First Editions R Us downtown, and they were going to take possession of it, process it as evidence, and return it to the rightful owner. Can he sue because his notes are now useless? Can he scream and yell that he paid for it and he should be allowed to keep it? Well, he can - but should any reasonable judge allow the suit to proceed and does the kid accomplish anything except looking like a complete assh*le? Doubtful. This whole thing is much ado about nothing.


That is just a plain horrible analogy as you're essentially comparing a connected transaction to an unconnected transaction.

The thing with Amazon is that they are connected to all parties, they took back the money given to the unauthorized seller (MobileReference) and gave that back to the people that unwittingly bought stolen goods while simulatenously retrieving the stolen goods.

In your scenario the retrieval of stolen goods would have been done following the law by representatives of the law that had every right to enter the premises (assuming that they properly obtained a warrant), the person that had bought the stolen goods would have no right to sue the officers that confiscated the book, nor the store to which it rightfully belonged, but he'd have every right to sue the person that sold him the stolen book and get his money back, and if he was dealing with a generous judge he might even manage to get some money for damages.

The question here is whether Amazon has the *legal* right/responsibility to do everything themselves without the law being involved, and believe it or not, I feel that Amazon is the one that most needs the court to answer that question as they have the unenviable position of being right in the middle of it all (rights owners on one side, customers on the other, quite a nasty place to be in if you ask me).


----------



## bamaspride (Mar 21, 2009)

The key to the above statement is;

"(assuming that they properly obtained a warrant)".

I don't believe Amazon did this.  The ability and willingness to invade someone's privacy and remove their property, without warning or warrant, sets a dangerous precedent.  I believe Amazon now realizes this and will handle situations like this differently in the future.  

I do agree the lawsuit is frivolous, at best, and I'm satisfied with Amazon's commitment/apology.

M.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

> I'm amazed these things aren't already in place. They should have been from the start.


Yes, because lord knows all of us Independent Authors should have to go through a Homeland Security shakedown just for the right to publish our own wares... Besides, these books were published on Amazon by a LEGITIMATE publisher. Amazon had no reason to question their right to publish the book in the Kindle Store at the time. I do not accept that I should have to go through a virtual form of strip search just to publish my book because a real publisher screwed over both Amazon and the readers who bought these books.



> Actually doesn't look too complicated to me. You enter in a book title, it spits out who the copyright claimant is, when the copyright was registered and when the piece was published.


Is there a reason that everyone keeps overlooking the fact that, apparently, these books are in the public domain in other countries? The fact that the Internet is an international entity, but that copyright laws vary from country to country (the US probably being one of the more restrictive countries, though I'm unsure of that), makes this not such a black and white issue as you might think. It could be argued (though I have my doubts if this is the case) that MobileReference really thought that since the book was in the public domain elsewhere, that it could be treated as such here. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, of course, but it would be an understandable mistake if it were true.


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

Greg Banks said:


> Yes, because lord knows all of us Independent Authors should have to go through a Homeland Security shakedown just for the right to publish our own wares... Besides, these books were published on Amazon by a LEGITIMATE publisher. Amazon had no reason to question their right to publish the book in the Kindle Store at the time. I do not accept that I should have to go through a virtual form of strip search just to publish my book because a real publisher screwed over both Amazon and the readers who bought these books.


Independent authors have only recently had the privilege of bringing their books to the public in a manner like Amazon's store.After years and years of trying to catch the eye of one of the big publishers being the only way to put their work in the hands of someone to read it, I for one hope that Amazon does not have to require proof of copyright before accepting a book for sell.


----------



## Annie (May 28, 2009)

I thought that this was the most ridiculous thing in the world. I can't believe a 17 year kid sued over that. I'm sorry, but when I had summer reading assignments, I got the actual book and wrote in the book or took notes separately. It's better than on your computer, where you run the risk of it crashing and losing everything. You could always put it on a flash drive too. Just completely stupid on the kid's part.


----------



## ak rain (Nov 15, 2008)

how would you reference the ebook?  by line number?
sylvia


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

Greg Banks said:


> Yes, because lord knows all of us Independent Authors should have to go through a Homeland Security shakedown just for the right to publish our own wares... Besides, these books were published on Amazon by a LEGITIMATE publisher. Amazon had no reason to question their right to publish the book in the Kindle Store at the time. I do not accept that I should have to go through a virtual form of strip search just to publish my book because a real publisher screwed over both Amazon and the readers who bought these books.
> 
> Is there a reason that everyone keeps overlooking the fact that, apparently, these books are in the public domain in other countries? The fact that the Internet is an international entity, but that copyright laws vary from country to country (the US probably being one of the more restrictive countries, though I'm unsure of that), makes this not such a black and white issue as you might think. It could be argued (though I have my doubts if this is the case) that MobileReference really thought that since the book was in the public domain elsewhere, that it could be treated as such here. Ignorance of the law is no excuse, of course, but it would be an understandable mistake if it were true.


I completely understand what you are saying Greg about the "strip search" feeling for your own book, but to me they should have a system to check because when the consumer buys from Amazon they should feel secure they aren't buying what amounts to stolen property. It really is a big consumer support issue. I don't think Amazon needs to be sued. I think when Jeff posted on the Amazon forum his statement he was saying "this is important to us" and Amazon is a business that values their consumers and, the majority of the time, it shows in the way they are treated. There are a few vocal hoop jumpers who are attempting to use this to change DRM ect. but really Amazon just needs to handle it with better, quicker consumer communication and I think more than 90% of their customers would be fine with the refunds and pulling of books. I think most consumers don't like the spontaneous disappearance and the a day delay to find out what the heck happened. I also think some, like me, are uncomfortable with the idea that I can't go on Amazon and buy a book, and not think about if it is a legal copy. I didn't buy 1984, but I bought one of the Rand books. I had emailed the Rand institute a few months ago about Atlas and got a response that they thought a publisher was working on an ebook version "but it would be a while." A few months latter it showed up. I paid $5.99, the paperback on my shelf was only $7.99, so that didn't raise any suspicions, so I bought it. I am still fine with the fact that Amazon pulled it, pulled it from my kindle, and refunded my money. I also am still irritated that I wasted my time attempting to find out what happened to the book I just been reading a few hours ago. I've used ereaders since the early-mid 90's and the kindle is the only one I've owned that I've bought a bootlegged copy of a book from the authorized site. I don't know what it will take to take away that vulnerability, but they need to. It may create difficulties for self published writers, but Amazon's 1st priority needs to be consumers. I have plenty of books to choose from on Amazon, if the process to make sure a book *is legal* slows down the process, so be it. I know that probably sounds harsh, but I don't care for the dirty feeling I walked away with when I found out I'd bought an illegal copy of a book.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Shizu said:


> Can you open the .mpb file without the book? I notice that the notes of the book correspond to that particular book. When I changed the metadata of that book and reload to the kindle with same file name, the notes were gone. I had to start all over.


Yes, you can. Perhaps not on the Kindle, but definitely on your computer.

I can't be sure what happened in your instance, but I would guess that when you uploaded the book with the same name and opened that book, it overwrote the original .mpb file for that book.... I will have to test that out, now I'm curious.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

Selcien said:


> I think that the suit is frivolous but modkindle brought up a good point. The decisions made by the courts over the case will make Amazon's position, as well as ours, much clearer.
> 
> That is just a plain horrible analogy as you're essentially comparing a connected transaction to an unconnected transaction.
> 
> ...


I disagree. I think the plaintiff here, Justin whatshisname, should be suing the people who attempted to sell the book through amazon, not amazon itself, if he must sue anyone. This, to me, is just like him suing the person who sold him the stolen book to get his money back (although you know, in the situations I've been made aware of when someone has purchased goods that turned out to be stolen, there was no money to get back from the seller, and really no point in attempting to sue because it would have just cost the defrauded party more money in the end what with all the legal fees).


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

webhill said:


> I disagree. I think the plaintiff here, Justin whatshisname, should be suing the people who attempted to sell the book through amazon, not amazon itself, if he must sue anyone. This, to me, is just like him suing the person who sold him the stolen book to get his money back (although you know, in the situations I've been made aware of when someone has purchased goods that turned out to be stolen, there was no money to get back from the seller, and really no point in attempting to sue because it would have just cost the defrauded party more money in the end what with all the legal fees).


Yes but I'd be willing to bet MobileReference doesn't have nearly the deep pockets Amazon does.


----------



## Shizu (Oct 27, 2008)

pidgeon92 said:


> Yes, you can. Perhaps not on the Kindle, but definitely on your computer.
> 
> I can't be sure what happened in your instance, but I would guess that when you uploaded the book with the same name and opened that book, it overwrote the original .mpb file for that book.... I will have to test that out, now I'm curious.


So... use text editor?

The .mpb file definitely got overwrite. After I find out the notes were gone, I saw that the size of .mpb file was at the minimum.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

webhill said:


> I disagree. I think the plaintiff here, Justin whatshisname, should be suing the people who attempted to sell the book through amazon, not amazon itself, if he must sue anyone. This, to me, is just like him suing the person who sold him the stolen book to get his money back (although you know, in the situations I've been made aware of when someone has purchased goods that turned out to be stolen, there was no money to get back from the seller, and really no point in attempting to sue because it would have just cost the defrauded party more money in the end what with all the legal fees).


Amazon is the seller. To use your example, they'd be the ones selling the stolen book on Craig's List thinking that the guy they got the book from had a legal right to sell it to them, and therefor, they had the right to sell it again.

MobileReference didn't look closely enough to see if they had the rights to publish the e-books, Amazon didn't look closely enough to see if they had the rights to sell them, but seeing as how Amazon was the one selling the e-books to the people going to their store then it is their responsibility for selling them.

Further more, this suit is about the books being deleted, which is an action that MobileReference had no part in.

Don't get me wrong, I most certainly wouldn't want to go to court demanding that I should have been allowed to keep a book that I knew was stolen, but there's a number of issues involved here that need to be straightened out.

1. Who's legally responsible for selling illegally published e-books? The seller, the publisher, or both?

2. Does Amazon have the legal right to delete e-books? What if they had been illegally published? (This would tie into whether or not we actually own the e-books).

We can all speculate until we're smurf-like and all we'd have are mounds of speculation to show for it. The only way to determine who's legally responsible and for what action is for this to go to court.

And LOL @ the error I had in my other post, not only did I get the name wrong, but I misspelled it too (Mobi*b*ocket instead of MobileReference). I found it amusing anyway...


----------



## docjered (Apr 12, 2009)

Right or wrong? I don't know. Two thoughts, though:
1. I do not want Amazon deleting anything from my Kindle. I think it is invasive and a bad precedent. 

2. The kid is stupid for relying upon an electric device to hold what he considers to be valuable personal creation. A Kindle can fail and then where would he be


----------



## Annie (May 28, 2009)

docjered said:


> Right or wrong? I don't know. Two thoughts, though:
> 1. I do not want Amazon deleting anything from my Kindle. I think it is invasive and a bad precedent.
> 
> 2. The kid is stupid for relying upon an electric device to hold what he considers to be valuable personal creation. A Kindle can fail and then where would he be


I think Amazon has every right to delete something as long there is good reason, and they tell you why.


----------



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

Annie said:


> I think Amazon has every right to delete something as long there is good reason, and they tell you why.


I think in this case there was good reason, but in the future how do we know what is a good reason to them will also be a good reason to us?


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

Posted this on another thread but this is a more appropriate place...
Saw a story on Fox News Friday about the lawsuit. Funny how there was no uproar when they pulled the Harry Potter books or the Ayn Rand books, both of which were sold & removed under the same circumstances - the fact that they pulled 1984 made it easy to make the "Orwellian" connection, whether it's really there or not.
Anyway, here's the link to that story.
http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/25570205/amazon-ate-my-homework.htm#q=kindle


----------



## RamTheHammer (Apr 17, 2009)

The problem with the fox news story is that neither the reporters nor the lawyers discussing it had any idea of the underlying issue that got the book pulled. They did not report that the book was in violation of copy write nor did they report that both books were available at a higher cost all the time. I am so sick of lazy reporters!


----------



## Meemo (Oct 27, 2008)

RamTheHammer said:


> The problem with the fox news story is that neither the reporters nor the lawyers discussing it had any idea of the underlying issue that got the book pulled. They did not report that the book was in violation of copy write nor did they report that both books were available at a higher cost all the time. I am so sick of lazy reporters!


Well, she & the lawyer did both mention that Amazon said they'd sold a book "they didn't have the rights to" from a third party - but it was almost a throwaway remark & certainly not explained very well. (Wouldn't expect the lawyer or student to get into it.) It's a shame someone from Amazon didn't come on to at least explain their position a bit better.

I've said it before, but I'm constantly horrified by misinformation I see on TV and in newspapers about the subjects I know something about - makes me wonder how much they're getting wrong about the things I know nothing about.


----------



## Bren S. (May 10, 2009)

This is so clearly about people trying to make a fast $$$$$ . 
I think frivolous lawsuits like this one should not only be thrown out , but the Attorneys should be fined for wasting the courts time as well.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

> 2. Does Amazon have the legal right to delete e-books? What if they had been illegally published? (This would tie into whether or not we actually own the e-books).


I think there's a third, perhaps more significant question:

3. Does the rights owner have the right to demand that all illegal copies sold should immediately be deleted, and does this right supersede any other rights or desires of Amazon or the purchasers?

I say yes to both. It would be interesting to know whether the George Owell estate actually demanded this action, or if Amazon did this on their own. The apology by Bezos suggests the latter, but if the former were true, I think they did exactly what they should have done, and frankly, if there isn't a law to support such action upon request by the rights holder, there should be.


----------



## Paegan (Jul 20, 2009)

Scary...as purchasers of eBooks, we really don't have that many rights in the digital age

http://www.slate.com/id/2223214/

_edit: merged this post with existing thread on same topic_


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

That in no way "paves the way for ebook banning" as the article suggests. It does show what's possible if we aren't careful, but this just isn't the test case for all these things people are trying to make this incident out to be.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

Amazon has changed something related to deleting content from our Kindles. I had to return a book because of format issues. Amazon gave me a refund and took the book out of my media library. The email didn't have the usual request for me to remove it from my kindle. My whispernet was off and it was on the kindle. I turned on whisper net and waited, and waited, usually if I return a book a couple of minutes after I turn on whispernet it disappears from the kindle. It didn't. I checked my media library and it was gone from there. So I did the sync and check for new items. Still didn't go away. I waited a couple hours, thinking maybe there was a delay in the system. All my blogs and newspapers were downloading, another book I bought downloaded, but the one I returned was still on my kindle, did the sync and check, book stayed on the kindle. After that I just deleted it myself. Not a big deal, I would have deleted it sooner, but I wanted to "experiment" a little to see if the process has changed.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Greg Banks said:


> I think there's a third, perhaps more significant question:
> 
> 3. Does the rights owner have the right to demand that all illegal copies sold should immediately be deleted, and does this right supersede any other rights or desires of Amazon or the purchasers?
> 
> I say yes to both. It would be interesting to know whether the George Owell estate actually demanded this action, or if Amazon did this on their own. The apology by Bezos suggests the latter, but if the former were true, I think they did exactly what they should have done, and frankly, if there isn't a law to support such action upon request by the rights holder, there should be.


That's a very good question. I also wouldn't mind knowing whether rights owners can do the same with legally sold/purchased e-books as it seems that any e-book can disappear from Amazon at any time (I just noticed yesterday that Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's _Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch_ is no longer available for the Kindle, and I don't recall there being anything wrong with the formatting). Granted, I think the answer to your question would be yes on all counts, as it should be, and no on the legally sold books as I don't imagine that they should be able to change their minds about legal copies they already had sold but I'd prefer to be 100% sure on that. Of course, I don't think that any of this will come up in this particular case as a rights owner isn't involved in it, unless Amazon was actually pressured...

Oh well, I just hope that people will be as eager to post about the results of the case as they are that Amazon is getting sued 'cause I'm really curious what the courts would think.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

Selcien said:


> That's a very good question. I also wouldn't mind knowing whether rights owners can do the same with legally sold/purchased e-books as it seems that any e-book can disappear from Amazon at any time (I just noticed yesterday that Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman's _Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch_ is no longer available for the Kindle, and I don't recall there being anything wrong with the formatting).


It is still in my media library and it downloaded to my Kindle when I sent it. And opened without a problem. I wonder why they pulled it from the site?


----------



## Magna (Jul 28, 2009)

Greg Banks said:


> I think there's a third, perhaps more significant question:
> 
> 3. Does the rights owner have the right to demand that all illegal copies sold should immediately be deleted, and does this right supersede any other rights or desires of Amazon or the purchasers?
> 
> I say yes to both....


I think you're right. I think the terms of service we have all agreed to allow them to do this, though. For one thing, all Kindle users agree not to use their Kindles for any illegal purpose, and I would think that includes buying pirated books, even unwittingly. (I don't mean the buyers were a bunch of criminals - just that the purchase wasn't legally allowed.) Also, the terms give Amazon a lot of freedom in how it corrects problems. I think people would be surprised by how much.


----------



## srmalloy (Mar 3, 2009)

modkindle said:


> as a former lawyer, I am sort of glad this has happened. The issue of what rights and responsibilities Amazon has when they sell copyrighted content without the appropriate rights is not going to go away. It was always going to need a court to sort it out since the technology is new. Let's just get it over with. If it wasn't this kid suing, it would have been the Orwell estate suing to make Amazon delete them.


However, I think that the case serves to highlight another issue regarding online booksellers that has been exacerbated by the proliferation of e-books -- publisher location vs. seller location vs. buyer location. Because copyright laws are not consistent worldwide (consider the Mickey Mouse Perpetual Protection Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act versus Australian copyright law -- a work that is in copyright in the US may not be in Australia, or vice versa), it is possible for someone to list a work with Amazon that it is legal for them to sell in their country of residence because it is in the public domain there, be bought by someone in another country where it is also in public domain, but be stored on Amazon.com's servers in the United States where it is still under copyright. Or permutations on the copyright status. Is it legal for Amazon.com to list and sell a work submitted by someone for whom it is in the public domain, but is under copyright either for Amazon.com or the buyer? And where does the liability rest when this happens?


----------



## ak rain (Nov 15, 2008)

I have hoped that when I order a book from a company as large as Amazon that it is a legal transaction. liability has to be higher? maybe?
sylvia


----------



## srmalloy (Mar 3, 2009)

RamTheHammer said:


> Absolutely untrue! If you buy a stolen car you do not keep it. If you buy stolen jewelery you do not keep it. You have no rights to stolen goods regardless of how you received them!


By making this analogy, it shows that you are unclear about copyright. *Dowling v. United States*, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), addressed whether unlawful copies are considered stolen goods. From Justice Blackmun's majority opinion: '_The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over the copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use. While one may colloquially link infringement with some general notion of wrongful [473 U.S. 207, 218] appropriation, infringement plainly implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud._' The person producing the unlawful copy may be causing _economic_ harm to the copyright holder, they are not appropriating a physical object, nor are they depriving the copyright holder of the copyright itself. And this is where the legal wrangling has been occurring, with the RIAA/MPAA and their associates arguing that a copyright is the personal property of the copyright holder or their lessors, and that infringement of the copyright is equivalent to a physical theft of the copyright, and thereby seeking to reverse by encroachment the decision handed down in *Dowling* and others.


----------



## Magna (Jul 28, 2009)

srmalloy said:


> By making this analogy, it shows that you are unclear about copyright. *Dowling v. United States*, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), addressed whether unlawful copies are considered stolen goods.


The _Dowling_ distinction is an interesting one. Maybe someone can clarify something for me about the technology, though. I suspect an e-book is not a static thing like a traditional book that you could own and it just sits there. Instead, I'm guessing, copies are repeatedly being made of it, either on our Kindles or on our accounts maintained on Amazon's servers, or both, for purposes of modification (e.g., adding notes and bookmarks), backup, file management, etc. Is that correct? If that's so, an e-book isn't so much an item you can own as it is the right to make an indefinite series of copies of that item.

I'm basing this on the description in Amazon's terms of service of what it is that Amazon is selling us, but I'm not really sure. Maybe someone can clarify.


----------



## Magna (Jul 28, 2009)

Here's some analysis of the lawsuit, and thoughts from one lawyer about how it ought to come out:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/kindle-lawsuit-protecting-readers-future-abuses


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

Magna said:


> Here's some analysis of the lawsuit, and thoughts from one lawyer about how it ought to come out:
> http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/08/kindle-lawsuit-protecting-readers-future-abuses


Looks like yet another overly self-satisfied "journalist" who can't even be bothered to read the full description of the Kindle on amazon, much less actually *gasp* have seen or used one, since she has, of course, learned all she needs to know from bloggers who are equally ignorant.


----------



## Greg Banks (May 2, 2009)

> For one thing, all Kindle users agree not to use their Kindles for any illegal purpose, and I would think that includes buying pirated books, even unwittingly.


I agree.


----------



## LauraB (Nov 23, 2008)

_If you bought an illegal copy of a book "unwittingly" you didn't do anything illegal, the person who sold the book did the illegal act._ Amazon is in a customer service hole, for the most part, for the way they dealt with it. If they had pulled the book from Kindles and then *immediately* emailed customers saying they had done so because the book was bootleg, I, and probably 95% of the others would have been fine with it. My problem was I got a generic email (on the Rand book) that said the refund "I had requested had been processed." Then confusion set in, CS stated they didn't know why it happened and _even told me to go download it again_ . I wasted my time attempting to do that, that didn't work, I called back, they still didn't know anything. That sort of confusion on their level is not excusable. They shouldn't have set it in motion until they had a plan. But then, they went and did the exact same process with 1984. So, now, they are faced with even worse negative feelings and press than the 1st time. IMO the customers are not, and cannot be held accountable for the fact that they purchase an illegal download from Amazon. It is the official source for Kindle books. Amazon needs to deal with the issue and build customer trust that the books on their site are legal copies. To me, as a reading customer, that is my minimal expectation. I think, if this actually goes to court Amazon will not win. I think the customers will win, because what I think will happen is Amazon will have to get some sort of court order to come into our kindles and take books, and I bet that means they will have to set some criteria to cover communication with the customer to do it. I think Amazon has already made some of these changes because _I had to return a book, and get a refund, because it was poorly formatted. I left the whispernet on the kindle for almost 24 hours, I did sync and check a few times. The book was removed from my media library within 5 minutes of the refund, it stayed on my kindle until I finally got tired of the experiment and removed it myself the next day._ What this tells me is that (?) Jeff feels that something in their system went wrong with the Rand and 1984 debacle. And I beleive (I don't know anything, but I believe) Jeff wants me, as a customer, to trust Amazon to not sell me illegal copies and to trust their actions if one slips through, my trust of them has increased. And if they check my kindle, and see the copy was removed by me, maybe their trust in customers will increase as well.


----------



## Guest (Aug 10, 2009)

Folks, you have basically four choices:

1. Deal with it.  For the most part, Amazon has always been on the up and up with its customers.  If on occassion a pirated copy slips through, Amazon has the right to delete it from your Kindle as long as they refund your money.  This is in your user agreement, which it is assumed you read.  

2. Demand Amazon check each title to make sure it is legal.  Amazon has to add dozens, if not hundreds, of staff in order to individually verify each book.  This increases Amazon's overhead substantially.  It also delays the availability of books into its system.  This additional cost will mean fewer books available to Kindle customers.  It will also mean an increase in costs to customers to offset the additional manpower required.

3. Demand that Publishers prove they have a legal right to sell an item.  This means, individual publishers now have to spend money providing evidence of their copyright.  Big publishers that are already suspicious of ebooks will just balk at the additional requirement.  Small publishers won't be able to afford it.  This means fewer books available to Kindle customers.  Show of hands:  how many Kindle authors have formally registered their copyright with the U.S. Copyright Office?  

4. Demand that Amazon not be allowed to delete pirated copies from your Kindle.  This means a great many publishers will just pull their electronic offerings entirely.  In the RPG industry, we just saw this happen.  Wizards of the Coast went on a rampage and pulled all of their PDFs from the various e-retailers due to piracy.  And while the WoTC situation is much more complicated, it does illustrate that when panicked over pirated digital copies publishers would rather pull everything.  

So I guess make a decision as to what you want.  Because in the real world, those are the options.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

bardsandsages said:


> Folks, you have basically four choices:
> 
> 1. Deal with it. For the most part, Amazon has always been on the up and up with its customers. If on occassion a pirated copy slips through, Amazon has the right to delete it from your Kindle as long as they refund your money. This is in your user agreement, which it is assumed you read.
> 
> ...


Well said, I agree!! 
I am quite comfortable with #1 and it seems the bloggers most interested in the Kindle failing are the ones pushing for 2,3, or 4. The manufactured outrage is pretty annoying.


----------



## MagicalWingLT (May 12, 2009)

Well I was just surfing on Youtube.com and came across this video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvx2gSDuJ8M

I feel bad that the student lost his notes... I would of freaked out if I had to do it all over again for a test... Amazon was wrong to delete his book... And if they had to delete it they should of gave him some warning... I have a feeling we will see more cases like this soon...


----------

