Makes me glad my reader is not connected

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

... I also see no particular reason why this action would be illegal. Unwanted yes, undesirable yes, but illegal? What's the statute? Remember, this is not an organization with no right to access your e-reader; you've already granted them access in the TOS. ... but don't be naïve....

Uhm, speaking of naïve, YOU may see no particular reason, why a policeman cannot do a body-cavity search on you without probable cause either.... In fact, I am sure, there are some out there, who actually dream of such act being done to them....

But, the rest of us, find this act a violation. Just like we find, that deleting legally purchased files from our devices, without our permission, or a court order, a violation.

And there is a reasonable argument, that under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, a court may find the same. Particularly now, that there is no minimum amount of damage required.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I don't recall the specific procedure from purchasing my Kindle, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a click-through agreement at some point in the process -- most likely at purchase, since it was already tied to my account by the time it was shipped.

Click through agreements do not trump law. Whatever a click through agreement says is irrelevant. IF it is illegal, then it doesn't matter what their agreement says. Customers can not sign away their legal rights in the fine print of a contract. IF (notice that's an IF) Amazon is breaking the law by deleting content that the customer owns, then click through agreements or clauses in a TOS are irrelevant. It's also highly debatable whether "click-through" agreements themselves are even legally enforceable (but that's another topic).

You are also not purchasing tangible property, you're licensing content.

That's not true either. US courts have already ruled on this. The way Amazon is selling eBooks is a sale, not a license. Other industries have tried the exact same argument with DRM in the courts, and have lost.

For example, a shareware application has the legal right to time out and render itself completely inoperable -- not much different than a deletion. MMORPG's can wipe out virtual objects that are "owned" by your character, or even delete your character altogether for any reason they see fit. I've seen Microsoft server products that, if used in a way that just implies that you're not using it within the scope of the license, will actually shut down the entire server in 30 minutes. (You can't move certain FSMO roles off of an SBS server, in case you're curious. )

Shareware tells you upfront that there is a timeout (that's why it's a license)... Amazon does not.

In all the examples I know of, the MMORPG data is deleted from the companies server, not from your PC. They specifically design the MMORPG so that the data is on their central servers because of this.

Microsoft denies access, but does NOT delete customer data. Why do you think they even let you run it for 30 minutes at a time? It's because they can't deny access to you from retrieving your own data. I'm sure MS would rather make it so that the server wouldn't even boot, but they aren't allowed to do that. I'm pretty sure that's been through the courts, but I don't remember specifics.

Seriously, if you don't think your online purchases or other online behavior are eminently trackable, you're fooling yourself. Buy an e-book from any online vendor, and that purchase will stay in their database for as long as it exists.

Tracking is one thing. Deleting user owned content off of a user's device is an entirely different matter.

[griffonwing]

Breakdown.

The Ayn Rand book(s) were illegally uploaded. Amazon found out, removed them from their library, and sent out an APB to all Kindles to be on the lookout for Ayn Rand books matching such and such description. All offending culprits were summarily located and deleted. Fine. We knew at the time they were uploaded illegally. We moaned, we griped. In the end, it was Amazon's call.

Then, The same thing happened, only this time, it was not an individual uploading a PD book for profit, but a company. Inadvertently, we did not know at first that it was a PD issue. Now that we know, again, We moaned, we griped. In the end, it was Amazon's call.

So, we can assume now that anytime a PD book is uploaded for sale, if you purchase it, it will soon be deleted and you will be reimbursed. This should be a given. Any more outcry for this issue should be ignored.

NOW the issue is this. Amazon issued this statement first "Apparently, the publisher changed its mind about having electronic versions of Orwell's books. So Amazon removed them from the store..." according to Gizmodo.

Amazon, regardless of legal purchases, will renege on your purchase agreement at the whim of a publisher who changes their mind. This they have just proven. I understand those who will say "This was just another case of a PD issue", but before that fact came to light, it was a matter of a publisher changing their mind, and pulling all previously sold books from the store and the Kindles.

This is what we should really be focusing on. Reneging on honest sales during a legitimate agreement between publisher/distributor/purchaser. They've already proven they they are willing to do it.

I know also they were quoted as saying they would no longer be deleting the books from the Kindle in regards to PD works, but does the same go for when a publisher changes their mind?

That is something to at least think about, and keep in mind when you decide to purchase another ebook from Amazon.

[Teddman]

I don't necessarily even believe that this was an issue of unauthorized sale... I still think the original reason that "the publisher changed its mind" was the ultimate truth. Amazon realized very quickly how bad that sounded and spun out the copyright violation defense in its place.

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by Teddman

I don't necessarily even believe that this was an issue of unauthorized sale... I still think the original reason that "the publisher changed its mind" was the ultimate truth. Amazon realized very quickly how bad that sounded and spun out the copyright violation defense in its place.

Well, I'm not so sure. I don't think they are public domain here in the US.

Orwell dies in 1950. Here in the US it's Life +75, meaning it won't be PD here until 2025.

Unless we go by Date of Publishing. Animal Farm (1945) 1984 (1949). I'm not certain how to calculate PD books by date of publication.

[PKFFW]

I'm still wondering why there is any outcry at all?

As has been said time and again on these boards, this is a brave new digital world. On the one hand it seems totally accepted that if a consumer can get digital content for free, regardless of the rights of the author, then it is ok to do that. Now the shoe is on the other foot, Amazon can delete your content regardless of your rights, and this brave new world doesn't seem so nice after all.

You really can't have it both ways. Either everyones rights are fair game or no one's should be.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ahi]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I'm still wondering why there is any outcry at all?

As has been said time and again on these boards, this is a brave new digital world. On the one hand it seems totally accepted that if a consumer can get digital content for free, regardless of the rights of the author, then it is ok to do that. Now the shoe is on the other foot, Amazon can delete your content regardless of your rights, and this brave new world doesn't seem so nice after all.

You really can't have it both ways. Either everyones rights are fair game or no one's should be.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Your self-indulgently courageous stance makes very little sense.

Cheers,
Ahi

[Darqref]

The US Court system has apparently already declared a similar case to be not only legal, but required.

http://www.slate.com/id/2223214/

In 2004, TiVo sued Echostar (which runs Dish Network) for giving its customers DVR set-top boxes that TiVo alleged infringed on its software patents. A federal district judge agreed. As a remedy, the judge didn't simply force Dish to stop selling new devices containing the infringing software—the judge also ordered Dish to electronically disable the 192,000 devices that it had already installed in people's homes. (An appeals court later stayed the order; the legal battle is ongoing.) In 2001, a company called Playmedia sued AOL for including a version of the company's MP3 player in its software. A federal court agreed and ordered AOL to remove Playmedia's software from its customers' computers through a "live update."

(I'd love it if one of our resident lawyers could look up these cases and see if there is something about the above simplification that miss-states the actual legal )

I don't have a Kindle, and I probably won't ever get one, but if I was not already leaning that way this issue would make me reconsider.

[krischik]

Originally Posted by Darqref

The US Court system has apparently already declared a similar case to be not only legal, but required.

But that is Ok. A judge ordered the removal. But Amazon did was what we in Germany call Vorauseilender Gehorsam (no link to the english wikipedia - I guess it is a german thing).

If Vorauseilender Gehorsam crosses the border to Vigilante then it becomes illegal. And that is my opinion: Amazon acted vigilante here. Others might think different.

Martin

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Teddman

I don't necessarily even believe that this was an issue of unauthorized sale... I still think the original reason that "the publisher changed its mind" was the ultimate truth. Amazon realized very quickly how bad that sounded and spun out the copyright violation defense in its place.

No - it was unquestionably an illegal upload; Amazon sell the legitimate version of "Nineteen Eighty-Four", but it costs $9.99, not 99c as the illegal version did.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by ahi

Let me try to be clearer still:

I think it should be illegal--by national/federal law--for a device maker to construct their device in a way to facilitate the monitoring or deleting of content without explicit consent by the user on a case by case basis.

The fact that it isn't doesn't make the issue irrelevant. Amazon's slimy fore-planning is the root cause of the problems.

- Ahi

Ah, but here we get into the realm of user agreements. A company can put anything in there, but whether it will hold up in court is a completely different thing, naturally.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Are we positive it's not? I can see them getting away with monitoring via a term in the contract (authorized access), Microsoft basically does the same thing with their automatic updates and WGA, but not deleting. I would expect that if Microsoft went in and started deleting user owned content, they would get nailed for it.

That's a push technology, but not a pull technology. And when they do pull (reading info from your PC), you explicitly grant them permission. If I turn off automatic updates, MS can't see what I've running on my PC.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I also see no particular reason why this action would be illegal. Unwanted yes, undesirable yes, but illegal? What's the statute? Remember, this is not an organization with no right to access your e-reader; you've already granted them access in the TOS. You are also not purchasing tangible property, you're licensing content.

See my first statements, whatever they put in a UA, it may not hold up in court. And about the licensing, that's a whole other ball game (do you buy ebooks (which all sites say you do, even on amazon it says "buy now"), or do you lease ebooks, for a one-time fee?)

Originally Posted by griffonwing

NOW the issue is this. Amazon issued this statement first "Apparently, the publisher changed its mind about having electronic versions of Orwell's books. So Amazon removed them from the store..." according to Gizmodo.

Amazon, regardless of legal purchases, will renege on your purchase agreement at the whim of a publisher who changes their mind. This they have just proven. I understand those who will say "This was just another case of a PD issue", but before that fact came to light, it was a matter of a publisher changing their mind, and pulling all previously sold books from the store and the Kindles.

This is what we should really be focusing on. Reneging on honest sales during a legitimate agreement between publisher/distributor/purchaser. They've already proven they they are willing to do it.

I know also they were quoted as saying they would no longer be deleting the books from the Kindle in regards to PD works, but does the same go for when a publisher changes their mind?

That is something to at least think about, and keep in mind when you decide to purchase another ebook from Amazon.

So, if I buy a pbook, and the publisher decided the store I bought the book from shouldn't have been able to sell the book, will they come and get that book from my shelves? Because that's what happened here, if what you say is the reason.

Food for thought...

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

So, if I buy a pbook, and the publisher decided the store I bought the book from shouldn't have been able to sell the book, will they come and get that book from my shelves? Because that's what happened here, if what you say is the reason.

Food for thought...

Of course they won't. Not unless the totalitarian supremacy from '1984' actually does come to pass. But currently? No.

Not physical books. Now, e-books, by Amazon's own words, they are willing to do just that very thing. I will never own a device like that.

What if a writer publishes an ebook that decries and undermines/exposes the Obama regime. I purchase it to see what the hubbub i about. The government steps in and orders a federal mandate to Amazon to remove the book and all copies from Kindles. Or the government 'persuades' the publisher to do the same.

The fact that they CAN and WILL do such a thing makes me never want to own a Kindle. I have never bought anything from Amazon. Unbelievable though it may seem. And with this, I never will.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

Of course they won't. Not unless the totalitarian supremacy from '1984' actually does come to pass. But currently? No.

Not physical books. Now, e-books, by Amazon's own words, they are willing to do just that very thing. I will never own a device like that.

What if a writer publishes an ebook that decries and undermines/exposes the Obama regime. I purchase it to see what the hubbub i about. The government steps in and orders a federal mandate to Amazon to remove the book and all copies from Kindles. Or the government 'persuades' the publisher to do the same.

The fact that they CAN and WILL do such a thing makes me never want to own a Kindle. I have never bought anything from Amazon. Unbelievable though it may seem. And with this, I never will.

Then what is the difference between an ebook and pbook in this respect?

Take your example. Instead of buying the ebook, you bought the pbook. As the government would want all books to dissapear (what can't be found, has never existed, right?). Would they search every house for a copy? Naturally not. Too expensive and even worse publicity. Would they tell Amazon to remove it from their list and all the kindles that have the book? Yes, easy to do, it will cause a minor uproar, Amazon will get the blame, so, nothing lost.

So, what's the difference? With pbooks, they COULD do it but it takes a lot of time and money. With ebooks, they CAN do it, probably with a push on a button...

(and I agree with you that the they "CAN" can do it is a very good reason for me not to buy the device, even though they promise they never "WILL" do it. We all know how much promises from such a big company are worth...)

[griffonwing]

If option 1 (the pbooks) came to pass, it would require removal of property from your possession. A crime.

Option 2 (the ebooks), the same circumstance. It's a crime.

If X+Y=Z once, X+Y=Z all the time. The only changes in the equation are the materials. Paper vs Electrons.

Removal of an item that you paid for, simply because the published changed their minds, is a crime. I suppose that was my entire point.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

If option 1 (the pbooks) came to pass, it would require removal of property from your possession. A crime.

Option 2 (the ebooks), the same circumstance. It's a crime.

If X+Y=Z once, X+Y=Z all the time. The only changes in the equation are the materials. Paper vs Electrons.

Removal of an item that you paid for, simply because the published changed their minds, is a crime. I suppose that was my entire point.

Oh, I agree! But my point was that they won't get away with it in case of pbooks, but do get away with in case of ebooks...