Amazon has opened a hornets nest!

[SeaKing]

I keep seeing the statements about 1984 being "legally purchased."
That is not exactly true. I have read and thought about this.

If you purchase a boat from a seller for $1,000, give the seller a check, get a receipt, and then it turns out the boat was stolen, the police can come, get the boat from you, return it to the man it was stolen from, and arrest the seller. It is up to you and the courts to reclaim your $1,000 from the seller. You don't get to keep the boat.

Likewise if a airline oversells a seat on a plane, you may not get that seat.
I could go on.

It may be that some still have 1984 from the Amazon mishap and if so they have it illegally, and despite Amazon's best efforts. If they received the $30 for the mishap, and also have 1984 still, they have it immorally as well.

Amazon owned up to its mistake and tried to do the right thing. Has everyone else done the right thing?

[HarryT]

Sorry, but this is one of my pet hates . The book is called "Nineteen Eighty-four", not "1984" . I realise that it's an exercise in futility to say this, but I feel compelled to do so.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by banjobama

A person doesn't need to believe every single thing in an advertisement, either.

True. Nevertheless, companies like Amazon bear at least some respsonsibility, since it is quite obvious, to me at least, since their conscious goal is to keep people from making proper backups, to make you more dependent on them. It's an effective means of reducing competition.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by banjobama

A person doesn't need to believe every single thing in an advertisement, either.

I believe that truth in advertising laws are useful for a reason.

Pizza Hut has a new commercial. A man sings that you can have ANY CRUST FOR $10. The fine print at the bottom says, essentially, NO YOU CAN'T. "Stuffed" (cheese-filled) crust costs more.

I told Husband that I feel like it shouldn't be legal to say one thing and then counter it with fine print. "ANY CRUST" means any crust. If it doesn't, they shouldn't sing it.

That's my opinion, anyway.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, but this is one of my pet hates . The book is called "Nineteen Eighty-four", not "1984" . I realise that it's an exercise in futility to say this, but I feel compelled to do so.

It's called 1984 on some of its book covers. Perhaps, the title has been changed since its first publication on subsequent editions.

http://www.amazon.com/1984-Signet-Cl...6478807&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/1984-60th-Anni...6478807&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eight...6478807&sr=1-1

http://www.amazon.com/Nineteen-Eight...6478807&sr=1-1

The Kindle edition's cover:

http://www.amazon.com/1984-ebook/dp/...6478807&sr=1-1

Edit: The US edition printed in 1950 has 1984. Maybe the title was changed for US market.

[HarryT]

Bah! Humbug! is all I have to say .

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by taustin

True. Nevertheless, companies like Amazon bear at least some respsonsibility, since it is quite obvious, to me at least, since their conscious goal is to keep people from making proper backups, to make you more dependent on them.

It may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. Amazon ought to be telling people to backup their purchases, but who listens to warnings like this anyway? People seem to prefer the "it'll never happen to me" approach.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Fbone

It's called 1984 on some of its book covers. Perhaps, the title has been changed since its first publication on subsequent editions.

But that is not the title of the book. The title of the book is what is printed on the title page. Usually that is the same as what is on the cover but if they differ it is the title page information that is the actual title.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, the gist of what's being said is that there's no point in people endlessly whining about a mistake which Amazon made, admitted to, and put right, years ago. What does it achieve?

It's what keeps them from doing it again.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

If you purchase a boat from a seller for $1,000, give the seller a check, get a receipt, and then it turns out the boat was stolen, the police can come, get the boat from you, return it to the man it was stolen from, and arrest the seller. It is up to you and the courts to reclaim your $1,000 from the seller. You don't get to keep the boat.

Would you be surprised to learn that that actually depends on your jurisdiction? In mine, if you buy from an authorised seller you become the new owner, no matter what. Just saying.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

It's what keeps them from doing it again.

The awful press did that.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by taustin

No. No one said that. It was not, in fact, legally purchased. That it was illegally purchases was a mistake, not intentional infringement, but it was not legally purchased.

It was legally purchased from a store that didn't have the right to be selling it. The customers committed no crime in buying those books. When you go into a bookstore, do you confirm that the publisher legally has the right to publish that book, that the rights haven't reverted to the author? Do you check whether the author wrote that book or plagiarized large sections of it it? Do you check whether it was bought from a distributor in this region, or whether the bookstore illegally contract with a cheaper overseas distributor for this shipment?

When you buy books from a store, online or off, the burden of checking whether they're legal to sell is on the store, not the customer.

If the copyright owners objected, the proper recourse was to sue Amazon, and get a court ruling demanding the return of those ebooks. *THEN* they'd've had the right to grab them from people's Kindles. Amazon wasn't acting under a court ruling; they stole people's books as an appeasement offering to the copyright holders--"here, we'll take them back and then you won't sue us, okay?"

If a car dealership sells 2,000 cars with stolen tires, they don't have the right to break into people's garages and take back the tires in order to avoid a lawsuit from Michelin. Saying, "oops, we installed the wrong tires; we shouldn't have sold it to you that way" would not be so lightly accepted by customers.

Which is why Amazon got sued and lost a class-action suit by the customers.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If a car dealership sells 2,000 cars with stolen tires, they don't have the right to break into people's garages and take back the tires in order to avoid a lawsuit from Michelin. Saying, "oops, we installed the wrong tires; we shouldn't have sold it to you that way" would not be so lightly accepted by customers.

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.
(All subject to the vagaries of laws in different jurisdictions.)

[taustin]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

It may be obvious to you, but it isn't to me. Amazon ought to be telling people to backup their purchases,

Then you have, actually, agreed with me. They ought to be telling people that, but they're not, they're telling people they don't need to do so, because it's in the cloud.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It was legally purchased from a store that didn't have the right to be selling it.

That's not a legal purchse.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The customers committed no crime in buying those books.

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.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

When you go into a bookstore, do you confirm that the publisher legally has the right to publish that book, that the rights haven't reverted to the author?

Different laws apply there, actually. So far, the first sale doctrine does not apply to ebooks. (It should, IMO, but the law is very, very unclear on that so far, and there may be no practical way to implement it anyway, given that transferring an ebook file to someone else inherently involves making a copy.)

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

When you buy books from a store, online or off, the burden of checking whether they're legal to sell is on the store, not the customer.

That is true. But it doesn't change the fact that if the store doesn't have the right to sell it, it's not a legal sale.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If the copyright owners objected, the proper recourse was to sue Amazon, and get a court ruling demanding the return of those ebooks. *THEN* they'd've had the right to grab them from people's Kindles. Amazon wasn't acting under a court ruling; they stole people's books as an appeasement offering to the copyright holders--"here, we'll take them back and then you won't sue us, okay?"

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.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Which is why Amazon got sued and lost a class-action suit by the customers.

There was a lawsuit filed. It was intended to be a class action. It isn't a class action until the court says it is, though, and that's often very difficult to get the court to do. Furthermore, since this was only 2 1/2 years ago, I find it implausible that Amazon has lost anything, since it normally takes longer than that for a trial to be completed. And, in fact, no trial ever took place, or ever will, since it was settled. Part of the reason it was settled was, in the plaintiff's own words, "Plaintiffs believe they would not likely be able to certify classes under Rule 23(b)(3) because of Amazon’s offer to fully reimburse affected consumers for all Subject Works previously removed by Amazon from Devices and to restore notes and annotations."

In other words, the guys who filed the lawsuit came to the conclusion that they didn't actually have a class action.

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. Without permission or advanced notice (in very, very limited circumstances, though in the case of a judicial order, the end user will probably get fair warning from news coverage, but in the case of malware, it's entirely reasonable for Amazon to remotely delete something completely without notice).

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

(It also, of course, includes language the explicitly says there is no admission of wrongdoing of any kind.)

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