Amazon has opened a hornets nest!

[taustin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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.)

And even the (not) class action lawsuit wasn't about the ability to remotely delete the books, it was about Amazon lying about having that ability in the first place. Which was the only real legal issue. The main focus of the lawsuit was that they had advertised specifically that they couldn't remotely delete stuff you'd paid for, and that their terms of service didn't allow them to remotely delete stuff (not that the law didn't allow it, just that their terms of service didn't).

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

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.

The whole point was that Amazon was not the "authorized" seller of the "digital" 1984 in the USA.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by taustin

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.

Sure I agree. Backup. Backup. Backup. No matter what anyone says, you need to protect your personal property yourself.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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.

Had Amazon gotten a court order *before* deleting the books, the debate would never have come up. Buyers would've gotten an email that said, "this book was sold to you improperly; it is being removed and your money refunded."

Michelin does *not* have the right to go to people's houses and repossess those tires without a court order.

Originally Posted by taustin

That's not a legal purchse. ...
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.

I suspect we have a difference of opinion about vocabulary here. I would call it a legal purchase but an illegal sale. I admit this is hair-splitting, and not particularly relevant to the issues of "who did what wrong?"

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.

"Do something to correct it" does not mean "repossess sales without informing customers." That oversteps what they're allowed to do--especially since they expressly violated their contracts with all those customers. (The TOS that says buyers have the "right to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times.")

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.

The new categories for potential deletion are:

(a) the user consents to such deletion or modification;
(b) the user requests a refund for the Work or otherwise fails to pay for the Work (e.g., if a credit or debit card issuer declines to remit payment);
(c) a judicial or regulatory order requires such deletion or modification; or
(d) deletion or modification is reasonably necessary to protect the consumer or the operation of a Device or network through which the Device communicates

User request, lack of payment, judicial order, or malware. Not "oops we shouldn't have sold you that; we're taking it back now." Not "we've decided the cover art is offensive." Not "the author's been accused of slander and we're being sued by the slanderee."

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

Thanks; I have that one in my copyright cases folder.

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

I never care as much for the summaries, unless it's particularly long or complicated (and then I just use them to sort out which parts to read first). I like legal docs in their raw form.

[HansTWN]

I think it is time to let this one go. Did anyone get hurt? No, they all got their money back, and more.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I think it is time to let this one go. Did anyone get hurt? No, they all got their money back, and more.

When I make purchases, I don't agree to "at any time, the buyer can take it back and refund my money."

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Had Amazon gotten a court order *before* deleting the books, the debate would never have come up.

You've ignored this point several times already, so I suspect it's hopefull, but here goes again:

The real issue wasn't that they had the ability to delete stuff remotely, it was that they lied about having that ability. You can ignore that comment all you like, but it's still true. Even the lawsuit was about the lying, not the ability.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Buyers would've gotten an email that said, "this book was sold to you improperly; it is being removed and your money refunded."

Which they could have done without a court order, of course. But they didn't, and they refused to tell anyone why they had deleted the books in question for several days, until after the press got hold of it. None of this has anything to do with whether or not there's a court order.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I suspect we have a difference of opinion about vocabulary here.

Yeah. I'm using definitions in line with what the law says, and you're not.

And again, note, that the lawsuit was not, as was claimed, a class action, was not lost, it was settled (because the plaintiff agreed it would never be certified as a class action), and in the settlement, Amazon still reserves the right to remotely delete books, including (under some very limited circumstances) without notice.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

When I make purchases, I don't agree to "at any time, the buyer can take it back and refund my money."

Are you certain of that? Do you actually read the Terms of Service from start to finish every time?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by taustin

Are you certain of that? Do you actually read the Terms of Service from start to finish every time?

Every time? Of course not. When I first sign up for a site? Yes.

Okay, I don't read carefully and in detail. I *do* carefully read anything related to user conduct and purchases. I also check what region covers any legal disputes, and whether they demand arbitration.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by taustin

Are you certain of that? Do you actually read the Terms of Service from start to finish every time?

Doesn't Amazon (and most places) reserve the "right" to change the TOS any time they want?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Every time? Of course not. When I first sign up for a site? Yes.

Okay, I don't read carefully and in detail. I *do* carefully read anything related to user conduct and purchases. I also check what region covers any legal disputes, and whether they demand arbitration.

And how often to the TOS include a provision that lets them change the TOS at any time with or without notice?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by taustin

And how often to the TOS include a provision that lets them change the TOS at any time with or without notice?

I'm not concerned with unenforceable aspects of TOS's. "Can change at any time w/o notice" is not valid in my state; they're required to notify users of new provisions.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm not concerned with unenforceable aspects of TOS's. "Can change at any time w/o notice" is not valid in my state; they're required to notify users of new provisions.

And do you read every revision, word by word? And if you find something you don't like, what do you do then? You can refuse to accept it, sure, but you won't be getting a refund for any books you've already bought.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by taustin

And do you read every revision, word by word? And if you find something you don't like, what do you do then? You can refuse to accept it, sure, but you won't be getting a refund for any books you've already bought.

I don't buy books with DRM, so refunds are not particularly relevant to me--I archive my books & convert them into multiple formats so I'll still have them when the next dominant format shows up.

I'm also, as mentioned, not concerned with the parts of TOS's that are legally unenforceable. This includes rules against copying that fall within the range of fair use, and rules against use of my purchases by other members of my immediate family.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say--"if you clicked yes on the 7000-word agreement in 8 pt type, you are morally bound to follow a deliberately obscure set of rules designed to assure that the customer is always wrong?"

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by taustin

The real issue wasn't that they had the ability to delete stuff remotely, it was that they lied about having that ability.

No, the issue is that they have this ability at all. They have the ability to take someones private property with a mouse click. Whether they are upfront about it or hide it is irrelevant, the ability is the issue.