Ok, I never did finish law school, but from what I've absorbed in IP law over the years, my interpretation of this is:
a) the publisher is liable for copyright infringement;
b) Amazon would not be liable in the traditional sense as a distributor/retailer, though they would likely end up party to a lawsuit, though possible more for nuisance value;
c) the customer would not be liable, as an infringement of copyright requires the publication and dissemination, NOT simply the possession. Added to the
mens rea - the state of mind - i.e. the lack of intent - and you would be hard pressed to make any case against an innocent purchaser.
Amazon's actions up until now have not be in order to protect the purchaser from litigation, but to be seen to be doing everything within their power to address any infringement and mitigate any chance of being co-opted as a co-defendant in a lawsuit.
Their actions, while
possibly legal under their terms and agreement, is turning into a PR nightmare, hence their new direction.
And, to be honest, I'd love to see their actions challenged in court. There were some precedent-setting cases dealing with software licenses and leases that basically came down to "if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's a duck" - i.e. the licenses and leases were sales, and ownership to the extent of transferability was upheld. I'd like to see ebooks subjected to the same test - I wonder what that would mean for DRM?
