Class action suit against Amazon (sign up here!)

[Wario]

I think Amazon did the right thing, but should have warn their customer first.

The other side of the coin, Amazon could of given the detail of every Kindle owner who downloaded the ebook in question to the police, and let them entre people home and take away their kindles as evidence of the end user illegal ebook's. I bet that would work better

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Wario

The other side of the coin, Amazon could of given the detail of every Kindle owner who downloaded the ebook in question to the police, and let them entre people home and take away their kindles as evidence of the end user illegal ebook's.

Although Wario wrote the above in "jest," he does raise an interesting question. Could the Department of Homeland Security, NSA, the CIA, or the FBI obtain information about Kindle owners through Amazon? The telecoms were used to ferret out terrorists (at least that was the premise for doing the snooping), so why not Amazon to determine who is reading/buying subversive literature?

Or perhaps the book publishers can form their own RIAA-type organization and purchase inspection rights from Amazon. Once they surrepitiously discover that someone has an illegal book on their Kindle, they can seize the Kindle as evidence and sue civilly for damages and press prosecutors to cleanse the country of malcontents and misfits. A revival of the Palmer Raids and HUAC, all rolled into one!

Then, of course, should we develop our own religion police force, Amazon, in a burst of patriotism, could simply turn over names and addresses of those needing correction.

[Xiaopanda]

I'm a pretty simple kinda guy, and this is a complex issue.

From my POV: Amazon has a duty to ensure that they are NOT selling (or illegally distrubting) 'stolen' properties.

If they HAVE violated this, then they should be held accountable. I have no doubt Amazon has policies for just this sort of thing in pbooks and material objects.

I think that they should not be able to remove a copy from your Kindle, but should be able to immediatly stop futher sales. DRM (in theory) stops the illegal copy from being distributed. No problem.

However, (and I am so very not sure of this) IF it turns out that you are leasing the right to access the material, and Amazon revoke that right and pay recompense, then you are all up that creek. Whether or not you have actually read your agreement with Amazon (and I am sure there is one at least implied by buying and registering a Kindle device) is irrelivent, you did agree! (as did I , I have a Kindle in the house, 'gifted' to my household by an American friend)

Personally, I think your nuts to go "class action" if for no other reason than you seriously risk harsher condtions on E Book file in the future......

In Australia, this opinion and 40 cents gets you a local phone call.....

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by mad mike

i don't have a problem with what amazon did, but the fact that they were able to enter the kindle and remove the data, WITHOUT asking permission, OR TELLING they were going to, pee's me off!!!

the police in the USA are required a search warrant before they can enter my private property for the purposes of search and seizure, even if they know for sure, what they're looking for is there!

invasion of privacy is the issue here, for me... not the book/s...

we don't allow microsoft to come and go as they wish or our computers? do we? I DON'T!!! why would i allow amazon to check my kindle at will? hmmmm?

Bear in mind that Amazon never entered a Kindle without permission. The Kindle initiates communication with Amazon, not the other way around. Amazon flagged the books for deletion on their servers, and Kindles all over the US checked in with those servers and asked for updates. If you don't use the Whispernet service (ie, you never initiate that communication) then Amazon will never remove a book from your Kindle.

It's the same end result (the books you purchased are gone), but not as big-brotherish as people are making it out to be. Amazon is not scanning your Kindle's contents.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by GlennD

It's the same end result (the books you purchased are gone), but not as big-brotherish as people are making it out to be. Amazon is not scanning your Kindle's contents.

Amazon is not "scanning" the contents, but the Kindle does report back to Amazon's servers the title of the book that you're currently reading in its log file. Some people don't like this.

[markm]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Could the Department of Homeland Security, NSA, the CIA, or the FBI obtain information about Kindle owners through Amazon?

Yes. Libraries too. And cable/satellite TV companies can disclose the titles of movies you've purchased. Credit card companies can disclose where, when and what for any purchase you make. Same for grocery/department-store loyalty card programs, warehouse clubs (e.g., Costco, BJ's, Sams). All this is available to any law enforcement with a warrant (or, perhaps, without a warrant in certain cases).

Much of this data is also sold to and consolidated by credit reporting agencies such as Experian, who in turn resell demographic data and targeted marketing lists back to the stores or to manufacturers or advertising companies.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by GlennD

...
It's the same end result (the books you purchased are gone), but not as big-brotherish as people are making it out to be. Amazon is not scanning your Kindle's contents.

I think the whole point of this discussion is, that Amazon shouldn't be removing property, which you have legally and in good faith obtained from them in exchange for payment, without your permission, or a court order.

Now, Amazon knowing what I currently read, is another matter, and it doesn't make me feel all cosy and safe inside, either.

[maynard]

Sue 'em. I'm all for it.

[krisk]

Originally Posted by maynard

Sue 'em. I'm all for it.

thanks for sharin' there

[timezone]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Bear in mind that Amazon never entered a Kindle without permission. The Kindle initiates communication with Amazon, not the other way around. Amazon flagged the books for deletion on their servers, and Kindles all over the US checked in with those servers and asked for updates. If you don't use the Whispernet service (ie, you never initiate that communication) then Amazon will never remove a book from your Kindle.

It's the same end result (the books you purchased are gone), but not as big-brotherish as people are making it out to be. Amazon is not scanning your Kindle's contents.

So what you are saying is if I invite you to my house you then have the option to take something of value from the house. You were invited and didn't break-in. Amazon removed an item from the Kindle that was purchased from them, a legitimate seller.

Now I do want to add a strange twist to this and it doesn't necessarily support my belief that what Amazon did was wrong. The first person allegedly charged with stealing music if you remember a number of years ago, thought she was making a legal purchase. I believe she even paid for the downloads. However the site owner did not have the rights to sell the music. The seller might have been charged with a crime but I am not sure. She was charged with the alleged crime. Just being cautious how I state the outcome of which I am not sure of the final results. She made a commercial about not downloading copyrighted songs. I think the commercial she made had something to do with "making it right" Sounds similar.

[carld]

Originally Posted by timezone

So what you are saying is if I invite you to my house you then have the option to take something of value from the house. You were invited and didn't break-in. Amazon removed an item from the Kindle that was purchased from them, a legitimate seller.

Those situations aren't analogous at all. You know as well as I do that they were sold by a publisher without the rights to the books. Amazon only acted as a vendor or sales channel, not a publisher.

[JohnClif]

As the owner of 2 Kindles (original and a DX), I have a problem with this.

I really don't want Amazon dinking around on MY Kindle. That's right, it's mine. Any more than I want Microsoft dinking around on my PC, or Apple dinking around on my iPhone.

What Amazon should have done is this:

- removed the offending book from the Kindle Store
- paid the copyright owner the net profit from each book, or the net profit on the copyright owner's version of the ebook, whichever is greater
- left the retail customers alone

As has been pointed out elsewhere, what keeps Amazon from editing/replacing books? What if my New York Times is altered? I want to be able to trust Amazon, but only if they do NOT dink with what is on my device.

I know, they'll claim they have the right to delete pirated files. I say they don't (and I don't pirate files). I say they do have the right to revoke my ability to use Whispernet... but before they do that they'd better copy all of my Amazon purchases back over to my Kindle.

I think Amazon stepped on their cranks with this one.

[ghostwheel]

Originally Posted by timezone

The first person allegedly charged with stealing music if you remember a number of years ago, thought she was making a legal purchase. I believe she even paid for the downloads. However the site owner did not have the rights to sell the music. The seller might have been charged with a crime but I am not sure. She was charged with the alleged crime. Just being cautious how I state the outcome of which I am not sure of the final results. She made a commercial about not downloading copyrighted songs. I think the commercial she made had something to do with "making it right" Sounds similar.

I'm not sure who you are referring to. Jammie Thomas was the first person to be tried before a jury for file-sharing copyright infringement. As far as I know, the claim is that she used Kazaa, a file sharing software, and she is accused of making files on her drive available for download to others.

So, this is a totally different case, she did not think she is buying music legally, and she is not accused of having the songs, but for making them available for download to others.

(And, no one is accusing anyone of theft or stealing, but of copyright infringement.)

But maybe you meant some other case?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by timezone

So what you are saying is if I invite you to my house you then have the option to take something of value from the house. You were invited and didn't break-in. Amazon removed an item from the Kindle that was purchased from them, a legitimate seller.

I'd say a closer analogy is that you bought an item from a guy at your favorite coffee shop, not knowing the item was stolen. The authorities realize that a number of these items were sold at the coffee shop, so they keep an eye out. Sure enough, you come back into the coffee shop the next day sporting your hypothetical purchase and you get politely relieved of the item in question by the police. Perfectly legal - "your" item is now evidence in an investigation and in all likelihood you will never see it or the money you spent on it.

A purchaser of a stolen item is as much a victim as the person it was stolen from. Yes, that sucks (crime sucks!), but at least Amazon did their best to make it good and reduce the affect of the crime on the victims.

[krisk]

was it not also stated that Amazon was refunding money in these cases? that's a lot better than normal receipt of stolen goods cases. you get zilch back and a raised eyebrow if you protest oer'much