Makes me glad my reader is not connected

[tompe]

Originally Posted by netseeker

If that publisher would be a private individual then i would say "Ok, shit happens", but isn't that publisher a company?

It is probably a very small company. Amazon is a company also and they intentionally do not check if what they sell is OK to sell or not.

I have to admit that if Amazon had deleted annotations from my device then i would be pissed off.

What happens with the annotations if you remove a book? Do they disappear?

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by tompe

What happens with the annotations if you remove a book? Do they disappear?

Usually annotations are stored in another file and often those files (depends on the implementation) contain the annotated text. So they could be "useable" even without the ebook. But i don't know how annotations are implemented on the Kindle...

[doreenjoy]

A customer quoted in one of the news articles about this issue says his annotations were deleted.

It's likely that even if the annotations are still stored somewhere on the device, the average customer can no longer access them.

[carld]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Amazon could also try to make an agreement about the sold copies with the current copyright holder and compensate him for the "lost sales". Then those copies would be as legal as when the customers had bought them directly from the current copyright holder.

You really think Amazon should negotiate a contract and pay up every time some yahoo uploads a book they have no right to sell?

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Amazon could also try to make an agreement about the sold copies with the current copyright holder and compensate him for the "lost sales". Then those copies would be as legal as when the customers had bought them directly from the current copyright holder.

Not possible in the vast majority of cases.

Say I am the copyright holder of a work. If that work is covered by a current publishing contract, the contract gives an *exclusive right* to the publisher to sell the work. The rights cannot be granted an additional time to another company, which is what you're proposing Amazon should do.

Amazon has no reason to become a publisher. They are a distributor, plain and simple.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by carld

You really think Amazon should negotiate a contract and pay up every time some yahoo uploads a book they have no right to sell?

Who offered copyrighted content without authorization? Amazon. Why? Because they don't want to implement a way to make sure that such things can't happen. Yes, they should pay - just like you and i would have to pay if we would share illegal copies.
Amazon might then sue the publisher who uploaded the illegal copy to their platform.

[carld]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Who offered copyrighted content without authorization? Amazon. Why? Because they don't want to implement a way to make sure that such things can't happen. Yes, they should pay - just like you and i would have to pay if we would share illegal copies.
Amazon might then sue the publisher who uploaded the illegal copy to their platform.

No, the illegitimate publisher did. And it's not the same thing as you or I doing it at all, not even close.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Amazon has no reason to become a publisher. They are a distributor, plain and simple.

And exactly because they are not a publisher it would work in most of cases.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by carld

No, the illegitimate publisher did.

Who offers the distribution platform? Who gets paid directly by the customers? The publisher or Amazon?

Originally Posted by carld

And it's not the same thing as you or I doing it at all, not even close.

Please prove your statement.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by netseeker

And exactly because they are not a publisher it would work in most of cases.

I believe you may have missed my point. If I've given publishing rights to, for example, Simon & Schuster, I cannot then give those rights to Amazon until my contract with S&S expires.

To do so puts me in breach of my contract with S&S.

I'm no fan of Amazon but IMO it's unrealistic to expect them to 1. monitor copyrights, 2. monitor publishing rights (which are private contracts), or 3. negotiate agreements with every author who has a book ripped off by a rogue publisher.

I think I'm repeating myself ad nauseum, so I'm going to back away from this particular drama hole.

[carld]

Originally Posted by netseeker

And exactly because they are not a publisher it would work in most of cases.

It isn't Amazon's fault that someone uploaded illegal content. They have no culpability and to expect them not only to negotiate a contract (what a snarled mess that would be) but pay up for someone else's misdeed is just outrageous. They already gave the buyer's money back, that's enough.

Carl

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I believe you may have missed my point. If I've given publishing rights to, for example, Simon & Schuster, I cannot then give those rights to Amazon until my contract with S&S expires.

To do so puts me in breach of my contract with S&S.

You are assuming that a afterwards compensation is the same as another contract for publication rights. I meant a compensation in the manner "I pay you and you will not sue me because i distributed copies of your work without authorization.".

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I'm no fan of Amazon but IMO it's unrealistic to expect them to 1. monitor copyrights, 2. monitor publishing rights (which are private contracts), or 3. negotiate agreements with every author who has a book ripped off by a rogue publisher.

Do you know even one case where Amazon sold an unauthorized version of a printed book? It's not unrealistic, it's what every publisher and distributor just has to do.

[RobRittenhouse]

Originally Posted by carld

You really think Amazon should negotiate a contract and pay up every time some yahoo uploads a book they have no right to sell?

That's up to Amazon. They are effectively the publisher.

In the dead tree world a publisher who negligently published a work that violated copyright would be liable. I don't believe they would try to retrieve the books from the purchasers though. Nor do I think the purchasers have much liability (IANAL -- there was a comment from one earlier in this thread). I'm sure the publisher appreciates that Amazon did that but I doubt that the purchasers do.

Amazon might face a lawsuit from customers if they have, in fact, violated their EULA by removing the books.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by carld

They have no culpability and to expect them not only to negotiate a contract (what a snarled mess that would be) but pay up for someone else's misdeed is just outrageous. They already gave the buyer's money back, that's enough.

Carl, please re-read my previous posts. The idea was an alternate way to deal with such issues, not something Amazon should do additional to the removal of the ebooks.

[carld]

Originally Posted by netseeker

Carl, please re-read my previous posts. The idea was an alternate way to deal with such issues, not something Amazon should do additional to the removal of the ebooks.

Okay, sorry I'm kinda snarky, I should just quit reading. I'm only getting more aggravated.