Quote:
Originally Posted by taustin
They're immoral because they refused to commit criminal copyright violations?
|
They're immoral because they stole books they'd sold. The violation was *Amazon's*, not the customers, who bought in good faith... the publisher would be within their rights to sue Amazon.
To forestall that, Amazon did the digital equivalent of breaking into people's houses to remove books that were sold before the release date. Without warning. Without apology.
Quote:
|
The Orwell fiasco was a pretty good example of how to screw up by the numbers, but once they got the infringement notice, and they had the ability to remove the books, they had no choice. (I won't quibble that it was immoral to lie about that ability in their roll-out advertising on the Kindle, though.)
|
They had the technical ability, but removing the books was a violation of their TOS, which said that once you've bought it, you have the permanent right of access to it. Removing other people's digital property is against the law, even if those people acquired the property because *you* broke the law.
If they'd been ordered by a court to remove the books, that would've been different. But sellers don't have the right to demand (or just *force*) the return of products they've sold illegally; they need a higher authority for that.