Quote:
Originally Posted by bigtext
3) Amazon isn't the biggest problem here in terms of targeting the customer for DRM violations. It's the fact that someone could sue them to acquire the data. A publisher would be in a position to cross reference de-DRMed copies vs their official list of who received them.
|
There is no list of "people who have content without DRM but don't have the right to it." There is no list of "unauthorized non-DRM copies." There is *maybe* the *possibility* of a list of DRM-stripped copies... but no way to verify if those are from a legitimate purchase on another site, not linked to this account. (Amazon has no way of knowing what I've bought at Fictionwise.) For obscure-fringe situations, there's no way to identify who has a disability that qualifies them to strip the DRM to get access to the TTS functions of a Kindle. And since non-DRM'd copies are user-editable, there's no way to tell which have accurate metadata and which are spoofed.
The collection of this data serves
no legal or practical purpose. It's on par with recording the sounds coming out of people's houses and saying, "I suspect they have bootleg DVDs because we heard The Avengers playing, and none of their credit cards show a record of buying it."
While some publishers would *like* to believe that only DRM'd versions of ebooks are legit, and therefore any non-DRM'd copy of a recent bestseller is a sign of piracy, that claim involves (1) DRM removal to be entirely illegal, which it's not, and (2) the ability to identify a non-DRM'd copy of a specific title, which, because of editing abilities, they don't have.
If Amazon or B&N were required under point of lawsuit to investigate a specific user, they could probably turn over a list of the contents of that user's ereader, to the best of their knowledge, which might include data that could be used to affix charges of piracy or copyright infringement. However, to collect and manage that data from everyone would require a *purpose*... and spending the effort to aggregate millions (billions?) of ebook listings from all sorts of sources, while leaving themselves open to liability for the accuracy and maintenance of the data, would be beyond stupid.
"Close enough for marketing purposes" is not the same as "admissible in court." If they guess wrong on marketing, they show a few titles the customer wasn't interested in; shrug. If they submit inaccurate statements to court, they're guilty of perjury or contempt, and possible libel. The data can't be collected at an accurate enough level for lawsuits--not even really ridiculous lawsuits like the RIAA is so fond of.