Makes me glad my reader is not connected

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Alfy

An additional thought: having a copy of this book on your Kindle is wrong. Fair enough. But it is not up to Amazon to decide whether or not any file on my Kindle is legal, and it is certainly not up to them to enforce the law. Amazon is not the law, and it was I dislike what happened so much about what happened. I really do not want to live in a world where corporations can decide what is right and what is wrong AND enforce their point of views. What's next? Operating systems that can be searched remotely to check the hardd rives? Auto deletion of any file that does not fit certain criteria??? I'm not being hysterical here: what happened is just a very small tiny step, but it was definitly in the wrong direction.

But if it was, as they said, a matter of their refund system automatically deleting then it wasn't necessarily them deciding to enforce the law. I've had a few books without DRM on my Kindle that are not available without DRM. They're all books I acquired legally. I removed the DRM and format shifted them for my own personal use but Amazon would have no way of knowing that. They could be pirated for all they know. So far, it's looking like they're not paying attention to what I have on my Kindle aside from the content I purchase through them, annotations and bookmarks. This may change of course. If it does, I'll be looking for another shop.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Nope. These "people" didn't do anything "bad" to the author, they paid money and received the book file in exchange.

I'm not saying they did do anything bad in this particular instance.

Originally Posted by Sonist

My whole point is, that there are ample legal remedies for the copyright holder to be made whole.

Instead, Amazon took a "shortcut" and reached into such people's Kindles, and removed their legally obtained files. The legality of this action is at least dubious, the EULA notwithstanding (and I don't even know what it says on the subject, just like 99.999% of those who purchased a Kindle.)

Again, at least in the US, there are well-established legal procedures for copyright holders to defend their rights, and to be compensated if a court decides so. Do you understand this?

Or, do you have a problem with these established practices, and believe that large corporations have a better way of dispensing "justice," even if extralegal?

Yes I undestand. I do not have any problem with the established practices. My point about finding it hilarious is not about whether Amazon did anything illegal. Personally I don't think they did but that is for a court to decide.

My point is about people taking issue with Amazon doing something that may or may not be illegal but they feel does infringe upon their rights whilst at the same time having no problem with themselves doing something that may or may not be illegal but does certainly infringe upon an authors rights.(be it in another author and another instance)

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ahi]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

My point is about people taking issue with Amazon doing something that may or may not be illegal but they feel does infringe upon their rights whilst at the same time having no problem with themselves doing something that may or may not be illegal but does certainly infringe upon an authors rights.(be it in another author and another instance)

I think Ayn Rand might be more worried about what squirrels are doing on her gravestone every spring than about whether or not random strangers are reading her book on ebook reading devices.

- Ahi

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ahi

I think Ayn Rand might be more worried about what squirrels are doing on her gravestone every spring than about whether or not random strangers are reading her book on ebook reading devices.

- Ahi

Ok, I'll try to be clearer......

Some people complain about Amazon infringing their rights by doing something that may or may not be legal(Ayn Rand and Orwell incidents)........

While at the same time in other unrelated instances...........

Happily go about infringing upon the rights of others by acquring copyrighted works by other authors without paying for them.

I am not saying they infringed Orwell or Rand. I am not saying they did anything "bad" in this instance. They have, however, advocated, in other instances, doing something essentially the same as Amazon did in this instance.

Clearer now?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[ahi]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Some people complain about Amazon infringing their rights by doing something that may or may not be legal(Ayn Rand and Orwell incidents)........

While at the same time in other unrelated instances...........

Happily go about infringing upon the rights of others by acquring copyrighted works by other authors without paying for them.

I am not saying they infringed Orwell or Rand. I am not saying they did anything "bad" in this instance. They have, however, advocated, in other instances, doing something essentially the same as Amazon did in this instance.

You are suggesting that some of the people who feel that the Amazon corporation shouldn't violate individual's property rights are people who would be willing to (far less directly) violate another person's (non-property) rights... Ok. And therefore... what?

They are naughty and ought to be denounced as such? (I'm amicable to that.)

Or they ought to be stripped of their personal property rights? (Less amicable to this.)

Or perhaps be jailed in one of the federal sexual molestation camps? (If we do this one, people might just say we've overreacted!)

- Ahi

[HansTWN]

You are in great form today, Ahi. May I add another one? How about we institute slave labor for authors? Herd them into camps, two small bowls of broth a day and tell them "write or else"?

[griffonwing]

Oh! Can I be a writer! I wanna join!!

[carld]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are in great form today, Ahi. May I add another one? How about we institute slave labor for authors? Herd them into camps, two small bowls of broth a day and tell them "write or else"?

Actually some people claim that software (and by extension all creative effort) should always be free, and if we pay (reward) people for writing programs we should also punish them for not writing programs.

Edit: Here's the quote from Richard Stallman, I was close.

"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."

[griffonwing]

Originally Posted by carld

Actually some people claim that software (and by extension all creative effort) should always be free, and if we pay (reward) people for writing programs we should also punish them for not writing programs.

Edit: Here's the quote from Richard Stallman, I was close.

"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."

*Unloads the whips, chains, barnacle-beaters and cat-o-nine tails from the ships hold, and sets sail for the Amazon Basin...*

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ahi

You are suggesting that some of the people who feel that the Amazon corporation shouldn't violate individual's property rights are people who would be willing to (far less directly) violate another person's (non-property) rights... Ok. And therefore... what?

They are naughty and ought to be denounced as such? (I'm amicable to that.)

Or they ought to be stripped of their personal property rights? (Less amicable to this.)

Or perhaps be jailed in one of the federal sexual molestation camps? (If we do this one, people might just say we've overreacted!)

- Ahi

"And therefore.... what?"

Nothing, I was just mentioning that I find it humorous is all. You and Sonist seemed hell bent on connecting my point to these specific cases and so I thought I'd clarify. Though I'm sure you were both doing so because it was easier for you that way.

Oh and lets be clear, there is nothing "far less directly" about it. Downloading an authors work without paying for it is just as much a violation of that authors rights as Amazon deleting a book is of the kindles' owner. The only distinction is in the later case the wrong was done to the kindle owner who is complaigning and in the former it was done to someone else.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by carld

Actually some people claim that software (and by extension all creative effort) should always be free, and if we pay (reward) people for writing programs we should also punish them for not writing programs.

Edit: Here's the quote from Richard Stallman, I was close.

"If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs."

I would claim that idea is a load of codswallop.

The reward is deserved if the user entails some benefit from the program or at the very least desires some benefit from the program.(ie: wishes to use the program)

Basically what Richard Stallman is saying is that if someone creates something useful they must just give it to anyone and everyone without payment. Sorry but the world doesn't work that way. They are free to give it away if they want, it is not required though. And you can't punish someone for not doing something they are not required to do.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[carld]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I would claim that idea is a load of codswallop.

The reward is deserved if the user entails some benefit from the program or at the very least desires some benefit from the program.(ie: wishes to use the program)

Basically what Richard Stallman is saying is that if someone creates something useful they must just give it to anyone and everyone without payment. Sorry but the world doesn't work that way. They are free to give it away if they want, it is not required though. And you can't punish someone for not doing something they are not required to do.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I agree, but for some reason some people don't consider Intellectual Property subject to normal laws and morality.

Carl

[griffonwing]

Alternatively there could have been a choice.

If I recall correctly, there were legal Orwell books available for the Kindle. If so, then the Kindle owner should ahve been told something like the following.

"an illegal book was uploaded through the server. fortunately we have a legal copy available as well. this copy has been uploaded to your kindle, at our expense, and the version you have purchased will be removed in 3 business days. this should give you time to copy or move any annotations or notes you might have taken over to the legal version of the book. we apologize for any inconvienience, and we are taking all precaution that this does not happen again."

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

Alternatively there could have been a choice.

If I recall correctly, there were legal Orwell books available for the Kindle. If so, then the Kindle owner should ahve been told something like the following.

"an illegal book was uploaded through the server. fortunately we have a legal copy available as well. this copy has been uploaded to your kindle, at our expense, and the version you have purchased will be removed in 3 business days. this should give you time to copy or move any annotations or notes you might have taken over to the legal version of the book. we apologize for any inconvienience, and we are taking all precaution that this does not happen again."

What a smashingly brilliant idea!

Double thumbs up.................

Cheers,
PKFFW

[HarryT]

Do you honestly believe that Amazon should "give" people a $9.99 book (that's what the "legal" version costs) as a replacement for a $0.99 version that was uploaded in violation of copyright law? That sounds like a rather silly idea to me; it wasn't Amazon's "fault" that the infringing version was uploaded.