Kindle Deleted Ayn Rand Content

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

How could they possibly know if the eBook on your machine purchased elsewhere could be unauthorized? There is no method. This should not be a concern.
Dale

For that matter, how can they know if a book purchased from Amazon is unauthorized? If an individual person got permission from, say, Rowling to have digital versions of her books (like, one of her editors, or publisher--or her children), and they acquired one through Amazon's short-lived unauthorized sale--that person's copy is authorized even if the sale wasn't.

That's part of why copyright has to be prosecuted individually; rights-holders can grant individual permissions for copies without affecting their right to prevent widescale distribution.

However, I'll grant that's a rare case.

Since Amazon and the entire copyright-conscious world knows that Rowling doesn't allow e-editions of her books, what prevents them from removing those ebooks from anyone's Kindles? (Other than the fact that an ebook titled "Rowling_Harry_Potter_and_the_Sorcerers_Stone. txt" doesn't have to include any Potter text whatsoever. They could, presumably, open the file to look at it, confirm it's a copy of HPatSS, and decide to take action.)

How long before Kindle owners get DMCA takedown notices for unauthorized content? How long before publishers & authors demand that Amazon turn over lists of contents to them, the way they demand that ISP's comply with DMCA takedown notices?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

They presumably won't sell you these books in the first place and if they repeat the fiasco of letting one get by as happened here they will certainly likely remove it again. sorry if I misunderstood your original comment.

That brings up the question of how much responsibility do they have to ensure that user submitted eBooks do not violate copyright? Amazon is not just hosting the content, they are selling it. I would expect that they would need to do a lot more due diligence to ensure that eBooks they are selling are not unauthorized distributions. Taking something down after the fact is fine for an ISP who can claim safe harbor, but probably not for somebody who is a direct party to commercial infringement.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

For that matter, how can they know if a book purchased from Amazon is unauthorized? If an individual person got permission from, say, Rowling to have digital versions of her books (like, one of her editors, or publisher--or her children), and they acquired one through Amazon's short-lived unauthorized sale--that person's copy is authorized even if the sale wasn't.

Copyright law doesn't say whether the purchase is authorized, it says whether the sale is authorized. It wouldn't matter if the consumer got permission from Rowling to own a digital version, it would still be illegal for Amazon to sell it to them unless Amazon got authorization from Rowling.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

How long before Kindle owners get DMCA takedown notices for unauthorized content? How long before publishers & authors demand that Amazon turn over lists of contents to them, the way they demand that ISP's comply with DMCA takedown notices?

What content an individual Kindle owner has on their device shouldn't have anything to do with the DMCA. Possessing a copy of something is different than distributing a copy of it. Copyright/DMCA only cover the latter.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What content an individual Kindle owner has on their device shouldn't have anything to do with the DMCA. Possessing a copy of something is different than distributing a copy of it. Copyright/DMCA only cover the latter.

If I'm understanding this right...

It's legal to *acquire* or unauthorized copies, just not to *share* them? (But doesn't acquiring the copy involve "making" a copy, on your computer or reader or other device?)

This is a new thought for me; I'd thought having the copies themselves was against the law, not just the distribution of them.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If I'm understanding this right...

It's legal to *acquire* or unauthorized copies, just not to *share* them?

Isn't that a dictionary definaition of 'pirate'?

This is MY booty that me stole! Ye canna have any. Go find yer own!

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

This is a new thought for me; I'd thought having the copies themselves was against the law, not just the distribution of them.

Copyright law talks about authorization to distribute content, it says nothing about receiving it. This is not like "possessing stolen goods".

If someone buys a book from a retailer that doesn't have licensing rights from the publisher, the retailer is committing copyright infringement. It is not illegal for the buyer to possess the book.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyright law talks about authorization to distribute content, it says nothing about receiving it. This is not like "possessing stolen goods".

If someone buys a book from a retailer that doesn't have licensing rights from the publisher, the retailer is committing copyright infringement. It is not illegal for the buyer to possess the book.

That means that I can go out to a warez site and download and use anything I want with impunity, and without paying as long as I don’t redistribute it!

I’m skeptical!

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by wodin

That means that I can go out to a warez site and download and use anything I want with impunity, and without paying as long as I don’t redistribute it!

I’m skeptical!

Me too, but it does rather fit.

Copyright law was developed to stop publishers from grabbing their competition's work and re-selling it; it was not concerned about the purchasers of those illegally-made books, who had bought them in good faith.

Copyright law has been falling apart since copying stopped requiring thousands of dollars of specialized equipment. It's very possible that this is a loophole the RIAA doesn't want to discuss... that it's only the senders, not the receivers, who are breaking any laws.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by wodin

That means that I can go out to a warez site and download and use anything I want with impunity, and without paying as long as I don’t redistribute it!

I’m skeptical!

Indeed, in many countries with sane and sensible copyright infringement laws only distribution (i.e.: uploading) is illegal, and you would not be committing anything illegal unless of course you downloaded via bittorrent which works by both downloading and uploading at the same time.

Better to be skeptical than to become a spectacle though.

- Ahi

[Who are you?]

That would be contributory infringement, because your actions cause the reproduction and distribution of a copyright work. This is also illegal (in the US).

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Who are you?

That would be contributory infringement, because your actions cause the reproduction and distribution of a copyright work. This is also illegal (in the US).

Sorry?

My point was that while uploading (i.e.: distributing) is illegal most everywhere, downloading (in a way that does not simultaneously has you also uploading and thereby distributing) is not likewise illegal in all jurisdictions.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by wodin

That means that I can go out to a warez site and download and use anything I want with impunity, and without paying as long as I don’t redistribute it!

For example, the RIAA hasn't sued anybody for downloading.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copyright law was developed to stop publishers from grabbing their competition's work and re-selling it; it was not concerned about the purchasers of those illegally-made books, who had bought them in good faith.

Exactly. In this case the Kindle owners did nothing illegal, either purchasing or possessing the eBook.

[griffonwing]

The thing is, with most file-sharing programs like eMule, eDonkey, Shareaza, Kazaa, etc, when you download a file, it's stored in a temp folder that is also shareable, so even before you finished your file, you are already sharing the bits and bytes that you've already downloading.

Therefore, you are automatically sharing the file.

One way around this, possibly, is to go into preferences and uncheck the temp folder from being shared. Also, you can uncheck the Incoming folder as well, which is the folder the completed file is moved to.