Student sues Amazon after Kindle eats his homework

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

He bought the book in good faith from Amazon and then Amazon goes and removes it making his homework useless. He has a very good case. I do think he will win.

Might sound arrogant. But first of all I think he's a fool. If he's just "designing" a lawsuit for big money: Good luck to him.
If he actually has lost his notes and weeks or months of work: "Do backups on a frequent basis or choose a medium safe enough when entrusting your professional future" would have been my tip to him.
In German we say "Dummheit gehört bestraft". Translated something like "foolishness needs punishment".

I really HATE it, if people don't take responsibility for their life and their actions, but point to big corporates, society or government instead.
And looking at the unbelievable rulings of past lawsuits, he even may win.

And then, finally it's us, the other users, who'll have to pay the bill. Amazon and the other corporates being punished in lawsuits of course will rebill these amounts (PLUS interest PLUS buffers for similar lawsuits) in future products to us.
And why all of that? Because someone, who claims himself scientist and researcher (= academic), wasn't able (or willing) to think just one step ahead and define a backup plan or some kind of "safety net".

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

If he actually has lost his notes and weeks or months of work: "Do backups on a frequent basis or choose a medium save enough when entrusting your professional future" would have been my tip to him.

Do you think everyone who uses Microsoft Windows, and has automatic updates turned on, should have a backup hard drive in case Windows decides to delete software from their machines when the update goes through?

The kid trusted that when the Kindle's TOS said "you have the right to a permanent copy of books you've purchased," that meant he had, well, a permanent copy. That Amazon wouldn't arbitrarily remove books he'd purchased. He used the hardware in the way the manufacturer recommended.

I don't think it's "foolish" to use hardware & software in the way it's suggested. Nor that users should expect the company that sells them digital content to remove it on a whim.

It's foolish to leave one's home without locking the door. It's not foolish to believe that the maid who comes in once a week to clean, isn't going to steal your valuables... and even if you should've locked up the valuables, that doesn't mean you can't prosecute the theft.

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Do you think everyone who uses Microsoft Windows, and has automatic updates turned on, should have a backup hard drive in case Windows decides to delete software from their machines when the update goes through?

The kid trusted that when the Kindle's TOS said "you have the right to a permanent copy of books you've purchased," that meant he had, well, a permanent copy. That Amazon wouldn't arbitrarily remove books he'd purchased. He used the hardware in the way the manufacturer recommended.

I don't think it's "foolish" to use hardware & software in the way it's suggested. Nor that users should expect the company that sells them digital content to remove it on a whim.

It's foolish to leave one's home without locking the door. It's not foolish to believe that the maid who comes in once a week to clean, isn't going to steal your valuables... and even if you should've locked up the valuables, that doesn't mean you can't prosecute the theft.

I have a backup of all substantial data. Not because Microsoft or whoever might pull the data. But because my unit could be stolen or become defective.
And in this specific case: He couldn't have processed the data on Kindle anyway. (Or was his idea, to turn in his unit instead of paperwork?). So he would have needed some kind of data transfer anyway. I would do that more or less regularly. (Would be more efficient, to do the paperwork step by step anyway, instead of doing it just once in the end.)
I agree: I wouldn't expect Microsoft or Amazon to pull the data. But I'd prepare for the worst case, suddenly not being able to access my data for whatever higher cause, anymore. So I'd prepare some kind of backup.

In my job (sales outsourcing/offshoring) I very often have to solve cases of direct and indirect damages: Usually, neither my employer nor suppliers accept indirect damages.
Yes, you have to cover direct damages. In that case, he has paid for the book, so he either has to have it back or needs a credit note for that amount (plus maybe a bonus as good will from Amazon).

Just an example of my daily routine: If my employer doesn't deliver, our customer runs into troubles in his supply line.
Yes (legally approved) he of course can claim replacement deliveries without any additional costs. Even if that means additional costs for us.
And yes, he can claim costs in his supply line, for example when having to do quality checks because of time pressure caused by our escalation delivery.
No, he can't claim, having lost a customer contract because of not being able to deliver.
No, he can't claim, having a negative impact on his stock options because of us failing as a supplier.
It is his responsibility, to cover those risks.
Exception: Of course we can take over that risk. But this has to be PREDEFINED. And of course we would have to consider this in our calculation.

Personally, I wouldn't want Amazon increasing the prices by, let's assume, 10% to cover potential indirect damages.
I'd have to pay a fee for something, which never will benefit me.

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Do you think everyone who uses Microsoft Windows, and has automatic updates turned on, should have a backup hard drive in case Windows decides to delete software from their machines when the update goes through?

The kid trusted that when the Kindle's TOS said "you have the right to a permanent copy of books you've purchased," that meant he had, well, a permanent copy. That Amazon wouldn't arbitrarily remove books he'd purchased. He used the hardware in the way the manufacturer recommended.

I don't think it's "foolish" to use hardware & software in the way it's suggested. Nor that users should expect the company that sells them digital content to remove it on a whim.

It's foolish to leave one's home without locking the door. It's not foolish to believe that the maid who comes in once a week to clean, isn't going to steal your valuables... and even if you should've locked up the valuables, that doesn't mean you can't prosecute the theft.

Let me give 3 other examples:

Scenario 1:
Amazon didn't pull the content, but the unit simply got defective without user's fault. It's new, so Amazon is responsible to deliver a workable unit.
Could you take them into account? Could you file a lawsuit?
The result for the user would be the same, his data is lost.

Scenario 2:
Let's assume, because of Windows Update, Outlook get's mixed up.
An alarm is lost, I forget about a customer meeting and loose a big client.
Can I claim these indirect damages?
I've used Outlook as intended, data simply got lost because of a faulty update.

Scenario 3:
We manage our stock level with Navision. A software update kills our data. We order wrong capacities, assuming incorrect stock levels. We can't sell those stocks, no demand.

I hope, I can make my point clear: Indirect damages are extremely complicated....
Do you agree, usually you can't claim indirect damages, just direct ones?
Then my question would be: What's the difference to the forementioned case?
Does it make a difference, whether the supplier is making a mistake (faulty update, damaged unit) or whether his actions are "of questionable nature"?
I guess, there IS a difference. In legal terms, probably it's called "Intend".
But then again, question is: Did Amazon have criminal intend or did they simply correct a mistake (confirmed, they did it in a stupid way)?

[wodin]

All the scenarios in the world will not negate the fact the Amazon attempted to mitigate the liability for it's own negligence by performing a hostile act against it's customers who had dealt in good faith.

Was the act illegal? I don't know, that's up to the courts to decide. Was it just wrong? Most definably! If this student had not brought the incident to court, someone should, otherwise it would never be decided.

[Argel]

Originally Posted by ahi

She had third-degree burns that would leave permanent marks in the crotch area. And not because the coffee was hot, but because the location's policy was to "superheat" their coffee so that it would be still "very hot" some time later when they figured their customers would drink.

Based on my humble recollection...

Surprising how often you find a court gets things right when you know the full circumstances. It was Burger King and they had previously been warned that they were serving the coffee at a dangerously high temperature. They ignored the warning and they paid for it.

Maybe the court will be just as wise on this one...

[pdurrant]

It was McDonalds. Full details here:

http://www.stellaawards.com/stella.html

Originally Posted by Argel

Surprising how often you find a court gets things right when you know the full circumstances. It was Burger King and they had previously been warned that they were serving the coffee at a dangerously high temperature. They ignored the warning and they paid for it.

Maybe the court will be just as wise on this one...

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

... But first of all I think he's a fool. If he's just "designing" a lawsuit for big money...
If he actually has lost his notes and weeks or months of work: "Do backups on a frequent basis....

Hm, you might be totally missing the larger issue here, which goes way beyond the plaintiff's homework....

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hm, you might be totally missing the larger issue here, which goes way beyond the plaintiff's homework....

Class action, I know...
But still, here we've got a specific case.
And from a distance I clearly have to say, it seems construed.
Indirectly might be helping to clarify the entire situation: DRM, owning or just renting/leasing, ....
And back to the specific case: I agree, Amazon's action was stupid and quite unexpected. Somehow I'm kind of glad, not having Whispernet anyway.
But the entire discussion about damages seems ridiculous to me.
Might be the dooropener, as I said. But the case itself...
And again: What will be the consequences, if he actually might win? There may be punitive damages. Amazon may change it's behaviour. But first of all, Amazon will increase the prices to recover (if it would be a significant penalty).
And again: I'd hate to pay more, just because of a ridiculous lawsuit and -I repeat it- a fool who simply was sloppy and now tries to blame someone else.

Or do you think, this guy is a knight in shining armor, fighting for the higher good?

[Frankr]

I do not know how easy it is to backup with a Kindle, but I work in IT and our motto is Backup, backup and backup again. If it's important, you should have multiple backups in several locations. Device failure, media failure and human error, is not an excuse. This is not a new concept.

[wodin]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

What will be the consequences, if he actually might win? There may be punitive damages. Amazon may change it's behaviour. But first of all, Amazon will increase the prices to recover (if it would be a significant penalty). And again: I'd hate to pay more, just because of a ridiculous lawsuit ,,,

You don't believe that Amazon does not already charge all that the market will bear consistent with increasing it's market share?

Originally Posted by mgmueller

... and -I repeat it- a fool who simply was sloppy and now tries to blame someone else. Or do you think, this guy is a knight in shining armor, fighting for the higher good?

It is Amazon who is shifting the liability for it's negligence. They negligently allowed their marketing apparatus to distribute copyrighted material without the owner's consent. Instead of stepping up and acknowledging (and paying for) their negligence they are attempting to mitigate their damages by (possibly illegally) removing personally owed content from their customers personally owned devices.

Again, this is an issue for the courts to decide, and unless someone, regardless of motive, brings the issue to the courts, it will not be decided. This decision could be very far reaching in these times of instant communications.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Frankr

I do not know how easy it is to backup with a Kindle, but I work in IT and our motto is Backup, backup and backup again. If it's important, you should have multiple backups in several locations. Device failure, media failure and human error, is not an excuse. This is not a new concept.

But the book was backup:ed at Amazon since a bought book can be re-downloaded. So I do not see how a backup was not done or taken into account.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Jellby

Now it's correct

If you are going to quote me, please do not change my words to change the meaning of what I wrote.

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by wodin

You don't believe that Amazon does not already charge all that the market will bear consistent with increasing it's market share?




It is Amazon who is shifting the liability for it's negligence. They negligently allowed their marketing apparatus to distribute copyrighted material without the owner's consent. Instead of stepping up and acknowledging (and paying for) their negligence they are attempting to mitigate their damages by (possibly illegally) removing personally owed content from their customers personally owned devices.

Again, this is an issue for the courts to decide, and unless someone, regardless of motive, brings the issue to the courts, it will not be decided. This decision could be very far reaching in these times of instant communications.

I have no idea about their business plan.
But there have been lots of rumors about them burning money in the beginning.
And right now, they usually are about 15% cheaper than the others.
Probably we don't have to worry about their future and wealth. Analysts estimate up to $ 5bn in 2010 for Amazon with Kindles and eBooks.
Of course they aim for dominating the market. But on one hand, there'll be always independet suppliers of content. And if Amazon should decide, not supporting PDF anymore for example, within an instant there will be competitors. So they'll most likely continue to support "open" formats which enables you to purchase elsewhere.
And if they're profitable already now, I don't expect them increasing the prices when doubling their marketshare.

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by tompe

But the book was backup:ed at Amazon since a bought book can be re-downloaded. So I do not see how a backup was not done or taken into account.

Relying on backup of suppliers, which can cease business anytime = "foolish".
Did even happen with major player Sony (some MP3 webshop, as far as I remember).

And: He claims, only the combination of annotations AND ebook is usable.
So it would have made sense, backing up those 2 together.
I'd have made a copy of the book, would have stripped it from DRM, converted it into edible format and would have ported my notes and annotations. That's what he needed to do at some stage anyway and it's always "foolish" collecting more and more data and not backing ALL OF IT up.

And: How would he have used the annotations anyway? Can you print the ebook including the annotations? I guess not.
So you probably have to link the annotations to the book in a manual process. This still can be done. Maybe the book is available in Mobipocket and has similar layout?
Anyway, it can't be a problem, linking annotations manually to a book you've just read.

Again: I understand, lots of people consider this a chance to openly raise questions about DRM, owning content or just renting it and issues like that.
But still, this specific case is construed and "foolish".