Kindle Deleted Ayn Rand Content

[Elfwreck]

Somewhat tangential.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that I honestly don't know enough about P2P clients, and what information they provide to the user, to be able to sensibly answer that question. Sorry.

P2P clients provide the IP addresses from which the file is being drawn, and the speed at which the bits are being copied, and various bits of metadata (hashfiles, segment sizes, and whatnot), and might provide other info depending on the exact P2P software involved. It's not generally possible to know the exact name of the source, and the IP address could be going through one or more proxies.

I believe the analogy with Jammie Thomas is flawed; she had no legal right to distribute the songs. The analogy should've been, "then you don't think Kazaa/Napster/ThePirateBay/etc should be held responsible for allowing Jammie Thomas' exchanges to go through."

The P2P sites are not providing content; they are providing a specialized search engine that allows content-holders to connect with each other. P2P a way of downloading directly from other people's computers, with their consent; it allows download from several identical copies on several computers at once.

Almost nothing can prevent these data exchanges; the ability to transfer files from one computer to another is inherent in being online. All the P2P sites do is make it easy to do so. All they can do about potentially illegal content, is remove that file's searchability from their index--the files still exist, and individuals can still find ways to share them with each other.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Either way, is there a reason Ms. Thomas would have reason to believe she had received the right to distribute those files?

She had just as much reason to believe it as Amazon did, assuming that we are saying Amazon should not be held responsible.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

She had just as much reason to believe it as Amazon did, assuming that we are saying Amazon should not be held responsible.

I disagree. While I do think Amazon should check a little more thoroughly on it's submissions, they did have someone giving them identifying information and explicitly claiming that they had the rights to distribute. I really doubt Ms. Thomas had any sort of authorization process at all when she got tracks. Sure, she could've just assumed since someone gave them to her that it was legal to give them to someone else. I could assume if an item in a store doesn't have a price tag on it that it's free but I doubt I'd get away with that argument when I tried to walk out the door with it. My assumption wouldn't hold up in court. They would expect me to have some basic knowledge of the rules.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

P2P clients provide the IP addresses from which the file is being drawn, and the speed at which the bits are being copied, and various bits of metadata (hashfiles, segment sizes, and whatnot), and might provide other info depending on the exact P2P software involved. It's not generally possible to know the exact name of the source, and the IP address could be going through one or more proxies.

Most of the ones I've seen also provide account names.

I believe the analogy with Jammie Thomas is flawed; she had no legal right to distribute the songs.

Neither did Amazon. The question I'm posing isn't "did they have the legal right to distribute", but rather "are they responsible if they receive content in good faith, and then redistribute".

Theoretically, a P2P user is receiving content from unverified distributors, just like Amazon. If Amazon does not have to verify the uploader of the Ayn Rand books, but can be assumed to be acting "in good faith", then someone downloading from a P2P site can also be assumed to be acting in good faith that uploaders are authorizing distribution. Just about every P2P app I've seen has something during the installation that tells you that you should only share content that you have the authorization to distribute, and that the P2P network is not to be used for copyright infringement. Is that a particularly strong standard for authorization... not really. But neither is Amazon's "we'll assume you're authorized if you tell us so".

Should a downloader just assume that another random P2P user is the copyright holder of an RIAA published musician... probably not. But then again, Amazon just assumed that some random internet user was the authorized copyright holder for a Published Author.

If Amazon is not expected to verify every source and only has to remove material afterwards when it becomes known that it wasn't authorized, then P2P users are not expected to verify either.

I'm not saying I agree with the above. What I am saying is that if you do agree that Amazon is not responsible and that they acted "in good faith" by redistributing content that they believed was authorized without verification, then filesharers should be held to the exact same standard.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I disagree. While I do think Amazon should check a little more thoroughly on it's submissions, they did have someone giving them identifying information and explicitly claiming that they had the rights to distribute. I really doubt Ms. Thomas had any sort of authorization process at all when she got tracks. Sure, she could've just assumed since someone gave them to her that it was legal to give them to someone else.

If a copyright holder uploads content to a P2P network, they are implicitly giving authorization to redistribute that content. That's what P2P networks are for. If Amazon does not have to verify the original claim, then why do P2P users have that additional burden?

I could assume if an item in a store doesn't have a price tag on it that it's free but I doubt I'd get away with that argument when I tried to walk out the door with it. My assumption wouldn't hold up in court. They would expect me to have some basic knowledge of the rules.

Let's not get into the whole fallacy of comparing IP and copyright infringement with physical products and theft. Those analogies just don't work, the situations are fundamentally different.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

If a copyright holder uploads content to a P2P network, they are implicitly giving authorization to redistribute that content. That's what P2P networks are for. If Amazon does not have to verify the original claim, then why do P2P users have that additional burden?

I don't believe it follows that just because Amazon's effort was not sufficient in all cases that making no effort is then acceptable.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Let's not get into the whole fallacy of comparing IP and copyright infringement with physical products and theft. Those analogies just don't work, the situations are fundamentally different.

I was not comparing the infractions. I was comparing what is expected of people in our society as far as making sure their behavior is legal. If there is no price tag, a reasonable person would expect they would need to ask what the price is, not that they could just assume that it was there for the taking. If Ms. Thomas just assumed she had the legal right to redistribute those files without asking anyone or checking up on it, then she clearly was told by the courts that it was not the case.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Jellby

I am not a lawyer, but in my local (Spanish) laws it matters indeed whether there is money involved or not. Sharing copyrighted content without intent of profit is legal (or so has been ruled at least once), selling unauthorized copyrighted content is undoubtedly illegal. The fact that there is money involved is crucial.

But anyway, who is more or less responsible was not the main point, and it would depend on the circumstances and subjectivities.

I believe in the US, where Amazon's Kindle store does business, money doesn't matter. I could be wrong about that though, copyright law changes so fast these days, and usually to the detriment of the consumer.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by carld

I believe in the US, where Amazon's Kindle store does business, money doesn't matter. I could be wrong about that though, copyright law changes so fast these days, and usually to the detriment of the consumer.

I am by no means a legal expert, but I believe here in the US it's a criminal matter if you are charging money for pirated works. Giving them away is a civil matter IIRC.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I am by no means a legal expert, but I believe here in the US it's a criminal matter if you are charging money for pirated works. Giving them away is a civil matter IIRC.

I don't know about that. The FBI warning on all the DVDs I've seen recently say that infringement, even without monetary gain, is subject to some astronomical fine and imprisonment.

Carl

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You select the retailers to whom your books should be sent. That defaults to "All Retailers". I have attached a screen shot to my previous post #304 above to illustrate this.

And is the user made aware that "Amazon" means selling ebooks in the US (there's Amazon.ca, Amazon.de, etc.)? How can a user restrict the countries an ebook is going to be sold in?

EDIT: I see the screenshot says the ebooks will remain on Mobipocket servers, so I guess only the location of Mobipocket matters. If Mobipocket were based in Canada, they could host 1984, and if the files are not sent to Amazon... could Amazon.com sell an ebook that is PD in Canada and that is going to be transferred directly from Canada to the user?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jellby

And is the user made aware that "Amazon" means selling ebooks in the US (there's Amazon.ca, Amazon.de, etc.)? How can a user restrict the countries an ebook is going to be sold in?

It's specifically "Amazon.com" that Mobi distribute to - ie the Kindle book store in the USA.

You can restrict books in two ways: by selecting the retailers that you wish the books to be distributed to, and by specifying a "territorial restriction" in the book itself.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by carld

Amazon did not, the uploader did.

They both did.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by carld

I disagree, Amazon is no more at fault than the phone company or an ISP when they distribute illegal content.

In a way, you are right, because "fault" has nothing to do with the situation. It's merely a question of the extent of responsibility each entity has.

The phone company and the ISP are not generally responsible for transmitting infringing material. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17...2----000-.html

Amazon does not have that protection, and is responsible for any distribution of infringing material, regardless of fault. The legal term is "strict liability," and Amazon is liable, period.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

IF (notice that's an If), someone wants to say that Amazon should not be held responsible, then they are also saying that P2P users should not be held responsible either. I am just curious as to whether the people defending Amazon really feel that way, or if they are just making special rules because it is a company doing it instead of an individual.

There must be some sort of difference since the Pirate Bay guys got a year in prison.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by carld

There must be some sort of difference since the Pirate Bay guys got a year in prison.

One "difference" has to do with which country's law is involved. Another has to do with what kind of law - criminal or civil - is involved. Another has to do with exactly what it is that the law forbids.

On the P2P vs. Amazon situation, it seems to me that distribution is distribution. Amazon distributes infringing material all by itself, the P2P user distribute it as a group. Further, if I understand how P2P works, both Amazon and the P2P user store the infringing material, or some portion of it, on their own computer.

So in the absence of some other distinction, it seems to me that they should be, and will be, treated the same. As far as I can see, "good faith" only comes into play in terms of what the statutory damages wind up being.