[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

But Michelin would have the right to require you to return the tires, which are not your property, even though you did nothing wrong when buying them.
And if the garage had a magic button which would make the tires reappear at the garage, Michelin could get a court order to make the garage push the button.

Had Amazon gotten a court order *before* deleting the books, the debate would never have come up. Buyers would've gotten an email that said, "this book was sold to you improperly; it is being removed and your money refunded."

Michelin does *not* have the right to go to people's houses and repossess those tires without a court order.

Originally Posted by taustin

That's not a legal purchse. ...
As I said before, in the part that you didn't quote, that the retail custmer didn't do anything illegal doesn't make it a legal purchase.

I suspect we have a difference of opinion about vocabulary here. I would call it a legal purchase but an illegal sale. I admit this is hair-splitting, and not particularly relevant to the issues of "who did what wrong?"

You've never run a business, or been involve even remotely in business management, have you? Any business that demands they be sued before they'll correct something that is clearly illegal isn't going to last long. Welcome to grown-up land.

And there's a further wrinkle in copyright law, too: once Amazon knows they've done something illegal, and doesn't correct it, it can go from being a civil matter to being a criminal matter. You demand they actually commit a federal crime, because you simply don't understand the law, or how business works in the real world.

"Do something to correct it" does not mean "repossess sales without informing customers." That oversteps what they're allowed to do--especially since they expressly violated their contracts with all those customers. (The TOS that says buyers have the "right to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times.")

Furthermore, the settlement stipulated that Amazon retains the right to remotely delete books under certain circumstances. Got that? They still have the legal right to delete stuff under this settlement.

The new categories for potential deletion are:

(a) the user consents to such deletion or modification;
(b) the user requests a refund for the Work or otherwise fails to pay for the Work (e.g., if a credit or debit card issuer declines to remit payment);
(c) a judicial or regulatory order requires such deletion or modification; or
(d) deletion or modification is reasonably necessary to protect the consumer or the operation of a Device or network through which the Device communicates

User request, lack of payment, judicial order, or malware. Not "oops we shouldn't have sold you that; we're taking it back now." Not "we've decided the cover art is offensive." Not "the author's been accused of slander and we're being sued by the slanderee."

If you're interested in facts, you can read the settlement agreement at http://assets.bizjournals.com/cms_me...=techflash.com

Thanks; I have that one in my copyright cases folder.

A more plain english summary of the settlement can be found at http://arstechnica.com/web/news/2009...settlement.ars[/QUOTE]

I never care as much for the summaries, unless it's particularly long or complicated (and then I just use them to sort out which parts to read first). I like legal docs in their raw form.