Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT
I respectfully disagree. I think that Amazon did entirely the correct thing in doing everything in their ability to remove the infringing material from customer devices, and refunding customers' money. Doing that is the very ideal of "accepting responsibility for their own mistakes", although it's difficult to see what "mistake" Amazon made. If someone uploaded these books and deliberately lied about their right to do so, the blame falls squarely on that dishonest person, not on Amazon, it seems to me.
|
Seems like we (the folks on this thread) are going around and around in a circle.
When you say "Amazon did entirely the correct thing in doing everything in their ability..." There is a difference, I think, between doing what may be "perceived" as the "correct" thing and doing the "legal" thing.
There is a distinct difference between digital "property" and "physical" property and had the "mistake" (for lack of better word) been that had been a physical item was sold/distributed illegally, it might be "correct" to try to retrieve all of the illegally distributed physical units. However, it would not be legal for them to come to your house and demand repossession.
However, because technology and "digital property" is so much easier to "control" remotely, I suspect that it really doesn't matter what you or I or anyone else thinks because as a previous poster pointed out -- until Kindle (or computer owners in general) force the issue in the form of a class action lawsuit, the technology companies will continue to do whatever they please (I'm generalizing here because Microsoft will do basically the same sort of thing via their "Genuine Microsoft Advantage" spyware that you have to consent to in order to maintain any Windows platform -- so Amazon is, by no means, the only... or even WORST offender!)
But back to the question of WWARD: from the all-knowing never-errant Wikipedia which is quoting the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
Quote:
|
Libertarians are committed to the belief that individuals, and not states or groups of any other kind, are both ontologically and normatively primary; that individuals have rights against certain kinds of forcible interference on the part of others; that liberty, understood as non-interference, is the only thing that can be legitimately demanded of others as a matter of legal or political right; that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty; that social order is not at odds with but develops out of individual liberty; that the only proper use of coercion is defensive or to rectify an error;
|
So based on the purely libertarian view, Amazon was within their rights since they were trying rectify an error... Can't say I agree, maybe why I'm not a great libertarian.