[gmvasco]

Hi, Original Poster here.
Well, without reading too much on the insults and the fanboyism of some posts, some of the posts actually make very good points, which lead me to retract from my initial statement.
I hereby apologize for this perfect example of what not present in an argument: "let me say something to all those who can see Amazon's point on this matter. You're wrong.".

I have also come to understand some finer points discussed in this thread regarding legal procedures. Nothing wrong in acknowledging our faux-pas and ignorance in some matters.

However (didn't you just knew there was one of those coming around the corner?), I still believe in the main idea I presented, which was: "Amazon is due some punishment and their customers some compensation."
- What? - you say, or if you are easily excitable and grammar impervious
- WHAT??!????!!!!! (don't you just love those?)
Well, I'll explain my point of view. I see three issues that can't easily be dismissed regarding Amazon's actions. Jurisdiction. Responsibility. Damage.

Jurisdiction:
Without admitting that that book (1984) is or is not illegal, lets supposed it is for argument's sake.
So, I bought something illegal. I didn't know I was doing it, and if I get caught, I'll have to return it. Or the police might seize it. Yes? You see where I'm going with this?
Amazon isn't the police. I understand some of you might consider it perfectly legitimate to allow some private individual or corporation to go through your purchased items, as long as they or their parent company sold said item to you.
I maintain that the book was indeed sold and that they had no right going through your Library (their name, not mine).

Responsibility: Who dropped the ball? Amazon or the person who purchased the book?
Yes, I understand the argument that Amazon is innocent and it's nobody's fault, except for some third party, the company who posted the book.
Well, (sorry, but I gotta use this one) I might not be a fancy city lawyer like my esteemed colleague here, but it seems to me that Amazon profits from all these transactions, and they should be aware of their business associates. I'm not saying it's all on Amazon's shoulders, but you certainly can't pin this on the final client. Amazon should have asked, they should have informed, they should have done a lot of things. I see they are concerned with making an easy profit, but not so much in asking questions of where the stuff they sell comes from.

Damage:
This one is pretty simple. Customers were left without the book and without notice (except for trying to sell you stuff, Amazon isn't big on communication, I think I made that point). So, there might be people that:
- Got to the middle of the book and now can't read the rest (I know, they can buy another edition, but still...)
- Had made personal and valuable annotations (this one actually is a base for a whole industry of annotated books and related publications)
- Had offered the book to someone, and are now in the cold.
- Had a presentation to deliver that used that book, only to find out 5 minutes before they don't have any book and the audience is seating.
I'll grant that it is possible NONE of these occurred. But surely you will grant me that it might have occurred. Either way, Amazon doesn't care.

That's it, have fun, be civilized, tear my argument a new one (not me though, you couldn't possibly be smarter AND stronger than me*) or even revise your position.

(*I hope not at least. But just in case, I won't post my address.)