Class action suit against Amazon (sign up here!)

[jharker]

First, I am not a lawyer, etc.

As I understand it, Amazon is essentially a distributor. They have contracts with third parties (for example, publishers) who sell their goods through Amazon. I'm quite sure that part of this contract involves the publisher guaranteeing that they have the legal right to sell the books they have on sale.

The point here is that Amazon has a good-faith belief that the media they have on sale is legal. If it proves NOT to be, the fiscal and legal responsibility goes directly to the publisher, who signed a contract stating that it was.

When Amazon refunded the price of those books, do you think that was out of pocket? Maybe at first, but I'll be surprised if they don't go after those publishers for it.

Now, did they handle the rest correctly? Deleting the books directly off of the Kindles was definitely a Bad Move. It was possibly against the TOS and possibly illegal, but I don't know enough about either to be sure. It was certainly a bad PR move. As a Kindle owner myself, the fact that they can (and will) do that creeps me out. I'm sympathetic to the class-action suit idea. If I had owned one of those books and it had happened to me, I would be extremely pissed off.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by carld

Amazon did nothing wrong and isn't guilty of anything.

I suggest you go and read their Terms Of Service - the small print.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200144530

Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

... At best, the uploaders breached an agreement with Amazon, and Amazon could sue for breach of contract. It's probably not worth their time to do so....

I'd say this is a fairly safe bet. I'd also imagine, Amazon can try to make an example of a particularly egregious case, and depending on their contract, go for the costs incurred.

Originally Posted by whitearrow

... 2) Innocently possessing stolen property is not a crime, even if stolen property laws applied to intellectual property, and to date I'm unaware of any case where that has happened.

3) A class action suit would be a waste of time as nobody suffered any monetary damages, and arguing that injunctive relief should be granted would be idiotic in this case. You would basically be asking a court for an order saying that Amazon cannot remove copyrighted material that was uploaded illegally. No court would grant such an order.

Agree, but I'd imagine that Amazon will be quick to settle such lawsuit, and a few attorneys might be looking for a few hundred billable hours they can collect from such settlement. Oh, and a bit of glory on their resume.

[carld]

Originally Posted by kacir

I suggest you go and read their Terms Of Service - the small print.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200144530

Does not apply to books that shouldn't have been sold in the first place. Regardless of the EULA there is no right to keep stolen property.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by kacir

Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.

They got out of that by giving refunds. There was no more "payment of the applicable fees", so no more right to keep a permanent copy.

I'm not saying Amazon did anything "wrong," it's just creepy. And I have no idea how you turn off Whispernet forever, since eventually you'll want to turn it on to buy a book direct from the Amazon store.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

They got out of that by giving refunds. There was no more "payment of the applicable fees", so no more right to keep a permanent copy.

I'm not saying Amazon did anything "wrong," it's just creepy....

Without doing research, or being a specialist in the area, I am certain, someone can construct a reasonable argument, why accessing your Kindle without authorization, to remove a legally obtained file ("property"), would fall within one of the definitions of prohibited activity under the Computer Fraud&Abuse Act.

Even if Amazon wins such a case, it would be a Pyrrhic victory, with considerable costs in good-will. So, they'll likely settle.

But all this is a moot point, it seems.

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Without doing research, or being a specialist in the area, I am certain, someone can construct a reasonable argument, why accessing your Kindle without authorization, to remove a legally obtained file ("property"), would fall within one of the definitions of prohibited activity under the Computer Fraud&Abuse Act.

Sure, such an argument could be made. But if they gave you a refund, the case is likely to be dismissed before judgment because the damages to a plaintiff would be nil.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Agree, but I'd imagine that Amazon will be quick to settle such lawsuit, and a few attorneys might be looking for a few hundred billable hours they can collect from such settlement. Oh, and a bit of glory on their resume.

I don't think anyone will find a reputable attorney to file such a lawsuit, because the legal grounds for it, frankly, stink. There are no grounds for injunctive relief and no damages. Without one of those two things, you can't win a lawsuit. Amazon knows that and wouldn't settle for more than nuisance value, which isn't much to brag about.

[RobRittenhouse]

There might be some damages if the purchaser was using the book for research and lost their annotations.

Certainly the only people who would get anything out of a class action suit are the lawyers and the chances of getting much are slim. Doesn't mean it won't happen.

It's really the PR damages that sting Amazon.

[Roy White]

Interesting discussion... I'm certain that if Amazon had NOT removed the illegally uploaded books from those Kindles (And I'm not arguing the irritation factor or sense of violation the Kindle owners felt over having their books deleted... Keep in mind the refunds they got though) they would have risked a lawsuit from the Authors and publishers holding the actual copyright and distribution rights. And would have lost big time.

Tompe I was intrigued by your statement about Universal Morality. Whether moraity is an objective law like a foundation in the Universe or if morality is something you can define for yourself and your definition is just as valid as someone else even though you disagree and in many cases are on opposite sides of an issue.

You wrote, (in response to HarryT's statement, "might I respectfully suggest that it you feel the need to persecute someone, it should be the person who illegally uploaded the material to Amazon. They are the ones who did wrong, not Amazon. In removing the illegal material and refunded the purchasers' money Amazon have done precisely the right thing. Forget the law - it was the right thing to do.)

You wrote:
"Just claiming your morality as universal does make it so. My moral reasoning give me the conclusion it was the wrong thing to do."

Then a few posts later you wrote

"According to what law?

Not according to first sale principle.

In many countries if you buy something stolen in good faith it is yours to keep."

I have a question on a personal level (this issue goes directly to the question of whether you can steal money or property from someone and if it is immoral or moral to steal.)

Let's say someone swiped your Ereader or computer you spent hundreds or thousands on, then you spotted your property in the local Coffee shop being used by someone. So you confront that person and they say, "I bought this from a guy on the street! I got a great deal and it's mine becasue I bought it!" So you show him your name on the back and so on, proving it's yours. You go to the police and they say, "Yes that Ereader was once yours and was stolen from you but now since this other fellow "bought it" it's his and you are out of luck! Take a hike!"

I feel certain that you too would FEEL that the morally correct, the RIGHT thing to do would be for the police to forcibly remove your property from the poor sap that "bought it" from the thief and then if possible catch the thief and force the thief to pay back the poor sap that "bought" your property.

On the other hand I feel certain that the thief, (And possibly the Sap who "Bought" your stolen property) Would FEEL that the morally right thing to do would be to let the thief keep the money he got from the sale of your stolen goods and let the poor Sap keep your property.

Question. Who would be morally right? By your answer it would apear that you think BOTH could be morally right.

How can you not see that this is Amazons dilemna on this one? So to avoid the inevitable lawsuit forthcoming from the publishers of Atlas Shrugged they removed the stolen property AND restored the money to the Saps that unknowingly and innocently bought the stolen items.
I think Amazon did the right thing on this one.

(I'm not attacking or trying to stir up trouble, just talking)

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Roy White

Let's say someone swiped your Ereader or computer you spent hundreds or thousands on, then you spotted your property in the local Coffee shop being used by someone. So you confront that person and they say, "I bought this from a guy on the street! I got a great deal and it's mine becasue I bought it!" So you show him your name on the back and so on, proving it's yours. You go to the police and they say, "Yes that Ereader was once yours and was stolen from you but now since this other fellow "bought it" it's his and you are out of luck! Take a hike!"

One difference that disturbs me is that Amazon tampered with people's private property - their Kindles.
If you saw your stolen property through someone's living room window, are you entitled to enter their home without permission to retrieve it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

On what grounds would Amazon prosecute illegal uploaders?

In the UK, the appropriate charge would be, I believe, "Attempting to obtain money by deception", which is a serious criminal offence. I imagine that the US has a broadly equivalent offence? However, that assumes a deliberate attempt to deceive. It appears that this specific case may have been an inadvertant error, with a publisher uploading a book to Mobi in an area where the book is in the public domain, and not realising that Mobi redistributes it to the US, where it is not.

Obviously Amazon could not themselves prosecute anyone, but they should (IMHO) report them to the police in cases where it seems that the intent is to defraud.

[Roy White]

Sparrow. Except for amazon didn't forcibly enter Their homes and "steal" the files back. Their was no trespassing involved. The media itself assumes that manafacturers can intrude into lives and make changes on your device. Firmware updates that might change a feature you love and disable other features you dislike for example. So let's say you see your property in a thiefs house and you can retrieve your property by calling it to you like you would a dog. And in the process of calling it to you, you reimburse the present possesor full price so there was no actual loss on his part, and you then offer to sell him another product (a legal one this time) with the money you returned to him. I don't see how the poor sap that bought the stolen property can be considered to have been "wronged." I noticed by the way that there's another thread that goes round and round about this and it doesn't appear that any consensus can be reached about this. it's probably fruitless discussion kind of like two people arguing religion rarely if ever manage to change the other persons mind.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Roy White

Let's say someone swiped your Ereader or computer you spent hundreds or thousands on, then you spotted your property in the local Coffee shop being used by someone. So you confront that person and they say, "I bought this from a guy on the street! I got a great deal and it's mine becasue I bought it!" So you show him your name on the back and so on, proving it's yours. You go to the police and they say, "Yes that Ereader was once yours and was stolen from you but now since this other fellow "bought it" it's his and you are out of luck! Take a hike!"

I feel certain that you too would FEEL that the morally correct, the RIGHT thing to do would be for the police to forcibly remove your property from the poor sap that "bought it" from the thief and then if possible catch the thief and force the thief to pay back the poor sap that "bought" your property.

Well, I have read so much moral philosophy so I reason about these things and I tend to favor some sort of utilitarianism. The laws in Sweden worked exactly as you describe a couple of years ago and I was not especially upset by this. You have to look at the whole system of laws and cannot morally evaluate one law in isolation.

Question. Who would be morally right? By your answer it would apear that you think BOTH could be morally right.

I do not see how that follows but since I tend toward utilitarianism both cannot be correct.

How can you not see that this is Amazons dilemna on this one? So to avoid the inevitable lawsuit forthcoming from the publishers of Atlas Shrugged they removed the stolen property AND restored the money to the Saps that unknowingly and innocently bought the stolen items.
I think Amazon did the right thing on this one.

From an utilitarian viewpoint it might be the case that a lawsuit is the best thing. It is best for the society.

And I do not think they will loose a law suit since they now have changed their behavior and will not remove books. They would not have done that if they thought they would loose laws suits.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Roy White

"Yes that Ereader was once yours and was stolen from you but now since this other fellow "bought it" it's his and you are out of luck! Take a hike!"

To clarify. This is one way laws can work and they did works so in Sweden previously. Your insurance would cover you and the insurance company could try to get the money from the thief. And since I have lived with this system it is pretty easy to find it morally acceptable. So I do not feel that the obviously moral thing is for the police to forcible take the item from the person that bought it in good faith.