Harry Potter on Kindle

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by da_jane

Here's the screen cap. I thought about this last night and all Amazon has to do, I think, under the DMCA is respond promptly to the take down notice so long as it was posted by someone other than Amazon.

Not necessarily. I'm pretty sure the DMCA protects Amazon-the-ISP, not Amazon-the-retailer. In other words, Amazon can't get in trouble for hosting the infringing titles, but it can be sued for selling them.

[da_jane]

Good point Nate. Wasn't thinking about Amazon the reseller. They'll have to change something on their backend to protect themselves as Amazon the reseller. I wonder if the books were put through using Amazon's self published feature, but even so that costs money.

[lilac_jive]

Jane- great post on Dear Author about this (I commented).

BTW I love your website If you need any more reviewers let me know Hey my name even begins with a J!

[da_jane]

Thanks! I'll remember that your name starts with a "J" for the future. It was kind of serendipitous that I posted the article today. I was finishing it up last night when I cruised over to MR (as I do every night) and knew I had to add the Rowling bit. It's like case exhibit A of what is wrong with publishing and ebooks.

[MMascaro]

At the bottom of the Amazon listings there are user comments that state

3 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
Illegal, January 24, 2009
By BacardiJim/LuckyRainbow "fiction/adventure ga... - See all my reviews

There is no confirmation on any official site. This can not be a legal authorized version. DO NOT BUY!!!! Comment | Permalink | Was this review helpful to you? (Report this)

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
illeagal?, January 24, 2009
By R. Reichert (New York City) - See all my reviews
No way this is a Legal Version of the book. Rowling is a total bit.... Witch when it comes to ebooks


Can these comments be use by Rawling to say the the person downloading the file knew they where illegal and go after the buyer?

Since they are at the bottom of the page there is no way to state that the buyer scrolled down.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by da_jane

Thanks! I'll remember that your name starts with a "J" for the future. It was kind of serendipitous that I posted the article today. I was finishing it up last night when I cruised over to MR (as I do every night) and knew I had to add the Rowling bit. It's like case exhibit A of what is wrong with publishing and ebooks.

Don't you ever just want to smack the publishing industry upside the head? Harlequin, like you said, seems to be one of the few companies that understands the ebook phenomenon.

But I still don't understand how the heck these books got up on Amazon.

[da_jane]

Originally Posted by MMascaro

Can these comments be use by Rawling to say the the person downloading the file knew they where illegal and go after the buyer?

Since they are at the bottom of the page there is no way to state that the buyer scrolled down.

You can leave a comment/review without having purchased the item. You simply need an Amazon account. There's nothing in the comments that you quoted that indicate that they downloaded the book. Merely that there was no way the copy could be legal.

[wayrad]

Originally Posted by MMascaro

Can these comments be use by Rawling to say the the person downloading the file knew they where illegal and go after the buyer?

Since they are at the bottom of the page there is no way to state that the buyer scrolled down.

IANAL, but I'm guessing that such a lawsuit wouldn't stand up. Why should people be expected to take the word of a semi-anonymous reviewer when the book is being offered for sale by Amazon, a respected retailer?

Besides, Amazon has much deeper pockets than the buyers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by da_jane

Good point Nate. Wasn't thinking about Amazon the reseller. They'll have to change something on their backend to protect themselves as Amazon the reseller. I wonder if the books were put through using Amazon's self published feature, but even so that costs money.

Presumably their "protection" is the fact that (I'm guessing) that when you submit a book for sale by Amazon, you have to accept some kind of disclaimer that you have a right to sell it, etc. etc. That will probably cover Amazon if the slime-ball lied when they submitted these books for sale.

[lilac_jive]

I don't see them on the kindle bestseller list, did they get pulled?

[Dylrob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The point is, though, that while we may disagree with her choice, it is hers to make, and nobody has the right to take it away from her. I hope that the low-life who posted these books is prosecuted to the full force of the law.

It could be argued that she partially has herself to blame for this. I mean one of the reasons she has given for not supporting ebooks is piracy. Well the piracy is already there, and she'd have to be an idiot not to have noticed. What this incident demonstrates however is that, despite the fact that it can be *illegally* downloaded for free, people are still more than willing to pay for a copy.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

I don't see them on the kindle bestseller list, did they get pulled?

yes http://www.google.com/search?q=%22No...ient=firefox-a

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

yes http://www.google.com/search?q=%22No...ient=firefox-a

Ruh roh. Bummer about this whole thing is we'll probably never know how it all panned out.

Yes, I know, curiosity killed the cat.

[JSWolf]

Looks like the illegal Harry Potter books were pulled from Amazon.com.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

But her copyrights are still valid.

Yes, I respect the law but I do not respect her wishes since I think they are bad for eBooks and bad for everybody. And calling people low-lifes because they do not respect a certain position is strange and insulting.