Kindle Deleted Ayn Rand Content

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I wonder, if some customers had backed up the ebooks on their hard drives, and later added them again to the Kindle, would they later be deleted again? Or was the deletion-and-refund a one-shot event?

I have no idea, but it's a good lesson about backing up your eBooks.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by mklynds

I am certain that ignorance of a law does not make you exempt from the law.

No, but lack of intent does matter to some laws. Fraud, for example, is only fraud if the person knowingly scammed someone. Selling a shoddy product is not illegal, unless the seller has deliberately mislead the buyer. (There's sometimes grounds for expected knowledge claims... a doctor can't say "I accidentally prescribed the wrong medication.")

The law has plenty of spots where it distinguishes between accidental wrongdoing or association, and deliberate attempts to evade the law.

Oddly, I don't think copyright laws mark any difference between distribution with intent to convince people it's legit, and distribution that acknowledges it's not legal. The copyright infringement penalties seem solely based on specific damages, whether actual or statutory, with intentions of the infringer being irrelevant.

(I'll have to look into that--I wonder if there's an exception of some sort for "I thought that book was in the public domain?" That could certainly happen with various older works.)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by mklynds

I am certain that ignorance of a law does not make you exempt from the law.

The uploader is the one that broke the law though (and for them ignorance is no excuse). In order to make the downloader equally responsible, you need to show that they were a willful contributor.

The downloader didn't directly break any law. In theory they would only be guilty of an indirect violation if it can be shown that there was intent.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The law has plenty of spots where it distinguishes between accidental wrongdoing or association, and deliberate attempts to evade the law.

In copyright it's called indirect infringement.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Oddly, I don't think copyright laws mark any difference between distribution with intent to convince people it's legit, and distribution that acknowledges it's not legal. The copyright infringement penalties seem solely based on specific damages, whether actual or statutory, with intentions of the infringer being irrelevant.

That's a little different. I believe you're correct in that the intent of the uploader does not matter with regards to whether they have committed infringement, although it does factor into the amount of damages awarded (willful statutory damages are much higher).

Whether or not the downloader has committed indirect infringement is different.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's a little different. I believe you're correct in that the intent of the uploader does not matter with regards to whether they have committed infringement, although it does factor into the amount of damages awarded (willful statutory damages are much higher).

Okay, that makes some sense.

Whether or not the downloader has committed indirect infringement is different.

Now I'm boggling at the concept of uploading docs that are in the public domain in some regions but not others... who is guilty of what, when they are downloaded into places where they are not in the public domain?

[wodin]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Okay, that makes some sense.



Now I'm boggling at the concept of uploading docs that are in the public domain in some regions but not others... who is guilty of what, when they are downloaded into places where they are not in the public domain?

I have seen disclaimers on works saying that they were in the public domain in one country but not in another, and if you live in that country don’t download them or you will be in violation of copyrights.

[Harmon]

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?

First question: I haven't dug into it deeply, but it looks like the way that the system works, you have to be an internet distributor of some kind to be involved with takedown notices. Takedown notices seem to be a kind of safe harbor for distributors. Obey the notice & you avoid the liability.

Second question: might be some Privacy Act implications on this one.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by wodin

I have seen disclaimers on works saying that they were in the public domain in one country but not in another, and if you live in that country don’t download them or you will be in violation of copyrights.

But what we're discussing is that the receiver isn't in violation, only the distributor. (Except the receiver is "making a copy" by downloading? And distributing to herself? Hm.)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

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.

Merely possessing an unauthorized copy of a work does not violate copyright law. It is unauthorized reproduction (or performance) of the work that violates the law, subject to certain exceptions where reproduction is permissible without the consent of the copyright owner. This is clear from Title 17, Chapter 1, section 106.

It doesn't seem to me to be a far stretch to think that a court would find that downloading an unauthorized copy is an unauthorized reproduction, and that the person doing the downloading is implicated in that activity. This is distinct from purchasing an unauthorized copy of a physical book, because the unauthorized pbook already exists when you buy it. But the downloaded ebook copy doesn't exist until you download it.

But consider Chapter 5, section 503. That section involves "remedies," not violations. But it authorizes a court to order the impounding of infringing copies, and to order the ultimate disposition of the copies, including destruction. It doesn't say anything about who has possession of the copies.

So as a practical matter, while possessing the unauthorized copy does not violate the law, it appears that the possessor of the copy has no enforceable right to retain possession of the unauthorized copy.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Agreed. I don't think Amazon had any legal right to delete the eBooks from their customer's devices. However, I also doubt any of those customers would really be upset about it enough to sue Amazon (which is probably what Amazon is counting on).

You could be right.

As I pointed out in one of the posts just above, Title 17, Chaper 5, section 503 gives the power to a court to impound unauthorized copies of a copyrighted item, and destroy or otherwise dispose of them. And it doesn't limit that authority to unsold copies.

This very strongly suggests that the buyer of an unauthorized ebook does not have any property rights in the ebook. He doesn't own it.

So he can't sue Amazon for destruction of the ebook. But what he can do is sue Amazon for is recovery of the amount paid for the ebook, plus punitive damages for invading the Kindle to do the erasing. Amazon couldn't preempt the lawsuit by refunding the payment.

Looks like a class action opportunity. But it's probably a pretty small class! Not much money in that...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Harmon

As I pointed out in one of the posts just above, Title 17, Chaper 5, section 503 gives the power to a court to impound unauthorized copies of a copyrighted item, and destroy or otherwise dispose of them. And it doesn't limit that authority to unsold copies.

The court's right to impound/destroy unauthorized copies doesn't necessarily extend to the purchaser doing the same, without a court order.

The court has the right to jail people for contempt of court; a random person in the courtroom doesn't have the right to do the same thing, no matter how disrespectful they think a statement was.

Looks like a class action opportunity. But it's probably a pretty small class! Not much money in that...

I think that last statement is the key point here. There will be no lawsuit because there's no money in it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Now I'm boggling at the concept of uploading docs that are in the public domain in some regions but not others... who is guilty of what, when they are downloaded into places where they are not in the public domain?

In theory, whoever distributed them in the region where they are not in the public domain. A lot of this sort of thing starts to get really murky. Copyright laws were written before this sort of thing existed, so they don't really take it into account.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by wodin

I have seen disclaimers on works saying that they were in the public domain in one country but not in another, and if you live in that country don’t download them or you will be in violation of copyrights.

That disclaimer was probably written by the hosting company or ISP, and isn't necessarily legally correct. They're telling the downloader that it's illegal in order to discourage them from doing it, but I don't think the answer of "who is responsible for any violation" is that simple.

This has only become a widespread problem since the internet has made it easy to transfer content across widely different areas. Copyright laws don't really take it into account. I would expect that we'll likely see treaties trying to bring the copyright status of different works into a more uniform state, such that it wouldn't be in the public domain in one country, but still under copyright in another.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Harmon

First question: I haven't dug into it deeply, but it looks like the way that the system works, you have to be an internet distributor of some kind to be involved with takedown notices. Takedown notices seem to be a kind of safe harbor for distributors. Obey the notice & you avoid the liability.

Yeah, takedown notices are a way for both sides to avoid legal complications. The copyright holder says "take the content down and I won't sue". It lets both sides resolve the issue quickly and easily without having to go to court.

I'm not sure such a thing would really apply in the case where a store is selling/distributing content rather than an ISP hosting material that they were not necessarily aware of. However, that may be a decision that is up to the copyright holder. I would think if someone were engaging in commercial infringement, the owner would be more interested in recovering damages through the legal process than "settling" for a takedown notice. But, that sounds similar to what happened in the Amazon case. Rand's agents may or may not have issued an actual takedown (I don't know), but it would fit what happened.

That would cover Amazon removing the content from their store though. Removing content from customer's devices is another matter entirely.