Kindle Deleted Ayn Rand Content

[Who are you?]

Originally Posted by ahi

Sorry?

My point was that while uploading (i.e.: distributing) is illegal most everywhere, downloading (in a way that does not simultaneously has you also uploading and thereby distributing) is not likewise illegal in all jurisdictions.

- Ahi

On a warez server there aren't a lot of copies of works, but there is only one which is reproduced and distributed whenever someone clicks the link for it. The person who clicks that link knowingly contributes to the infringement, which is as illegal in the US as doing the reproduction and distributing.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's legal to *acquire* or unauthorized copies, just not to *share* them?

Yes. In quite a few jurisdictions.
If you make *distributing* illegal, then there will not be means to *acquire* unauthorized copy.
Do you check for copyright of everything you download from the net? Every single piece of text?
You could have downloaded the text in "good faith".

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Who are you?

On a warez server there aren't a lot of copies of works, but there is only one which is reproduced and distributed whenever someone clicks the link for it. The person who clicks that link knowingly contributes to the infringement, which is as illegal in the US as doing the reproduction and distributing.

That is a patently ludicrous interpretation--even if that is the official legal view within the United States.

- Ahi

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kacir

Yes. In quite a few jurisdictions.
If you make *distributing* illegal, then there will not be means to *acquire* unauthorized copy.

Sure there will. From people willing to break the law. Of which there seem to be plenty.

I'm rather fascinated with this concept... that whatever lawbreaking is done in distributing unauthorized copies, the receivers of those copies have no liability for damages, no responsibility to give them up. (If that's the case, certainly someone should file suit against Amazon, demanding the return of the purchased Rand books. I don't expect it'd succeed, but it should make several lawyers very twitchy.)

It's a fascinating legal situation--an action shared by two people, of which only one is liable for penalties. Very Discordian.

I suppose it's comparable to situations where prostitution is illegal but soliciting is not. Hmmm.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Who are you?

On a warez server there aren't a lot of copies of works, but there is only one which is reproduced and distributed whenever someone clicks the link for it. The person who clicks that link knowingly contributes to the infringement, which is as illegal in the US as doing the reproduction and distributing.

That's a completely different situation from Kindle owners purchasing eBooks from Amazon in good faith.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's a completely different situation from Kindle owners purchasing eBooks from Amazon in good faith.

I'm not sure if that's different from clicking on a link at a site that says "totally free ebooks." At what point is the consumer required to check the legality of the advertised content?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

(If that's the case, certainly someone should file suit against Amazon, demanding the return of the purchased Rand books. I don't expect it'd succeed, but it should make several lawyers very twitchy.)

Agreed. I don't think Amazon had any legal right to delete the eBooks from their customer's devices. However, I also doubt any of those customers would really be upset about it enough to sue Amazon (which is probably what Amazon is counting on).

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's a completely different situation from Kindle owners purchasing eBooks from Amazon in good faith.

Except it isn't, if you the scenario proposed by him is how the law is. Ignorance thereof being no excuse and all.

Which is what makes it so ludicrous.

- Ahi

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Agreed. I don't think Amazon had any legal right to delete the eBooks from their customer's devices. However, I also doubt any of those customers would really be upset about it enough to sue Amazon (which is probably what Amazon is counting on).

Well, if you accept a refund which is conditional on removing the copy then what right would you have to sue? It is a bit like a recall. To get the refund you have to surrender the product.

Dale

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm not sure if that's different from clicking on a link at a site that says "totally free ebooks." At what point is the consumer required to check the legality of the advertised content?

I think the difference is whether in the eyes of the law the average person will have an expectation that the products they are buying from Amazon are legal.

Whether or not downloading from a warez site or from a P2P application is illegal has never been tested in court, as far as I know. Copyright law does not make receiving the content illegal. The best a plaintiff can hope for (as Who Are You says), is to convince the judge/jury that the downloader committed contributory infringement by being equally responsible for the distribution as the uploader.

Basically, receiving isn't illegal, but does "requesting to receive" mean you're legally responsible for the distribution? It may be more of a grey area the more obvious it is that you're getting it from a "shady" distributor. I don't know of anybody who has been successfully sued for it though.

The RIAA has spent a lot of effort to try and convince people that downloading is just as illegal as uploading, but they don't sue downloaders. Many sites/bloggers report on "copyright download" cases erroneously. If you read the actual charges, they are always about uploading/sharing.

I think that clearly, in the Amazon example, clicking on the "BUY" button for an eBook from Amazon would not be contributory infringement. There is no expectation that the customer would know it is an unauthorized distribution.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm not sure if that's different from clicking on a link at a site that says "totally free ebooks." At what point is the consumer required to check the legality of the advertised content?

In a sane legal system: at no point at all.

C. J. Cherryh stated on here several times that she receives no money for her eBooks available for sale... and basically that most (all?) have never been authorized by either her or her publisher.

So basically either the customer is not required to check and is blameless for mistakes/crimes of the seller (and downloading is legal for the same reason)... or most everyone on Mobileread who owns "legally" purchased C. J. Cherryh eBooks is likely to be open for prosecution for copyright infringement.

Perhaps people should just give themselves up, in hopes of receiving a lesser punishment.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Well, if you accept a refund which is conditional on removing the copy then what right would you have to sue? It is a bit like a recall. To get the refund you have to surrender the product.

Did Amazon give the kindle owners a choice? I don't remember anything in the story about customers being given an opportunity to accept the refund. Did I miss that part?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

Except it isn't, if you the scenario proposed by him is how the law is. Ignorance thereof being no excuse and all.

I think this is different from breaking a law while being ignorant of it. In this case, the intent (ignorance or knowledge) directly factors into it. I think a plaintiff would have to show intent on the part of the downloader in order to show that they were a willful contributor to the infringement. Even then, I don't know if such an argument would work. I'm not aware of it having been tried.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Agreed. I don't think Amazon had any legal right to delete the eBooks from their customer's devices. However, I also doubt any of those customers would really be upset about it enough to sue Amazon (which is probably what Amazon is counting on).

I wonder, if some customers had backed up the ebooks on their hard drives, and later added them again to the Kindle, would they later be deleted again? Or was the deletion-and-refund a one-shot event?

[mklynds]

I am certain that ignorance of a law does not make you exempt from the law.