"An Apology from Amazon"

[poohbear_nc]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

Is there a way to state that you do NOT wish to destroy old subscriptions? What If I wanted to keep my nE-wspapers for backup purposes? What If I got todays paper, started reading, then got a call, had to drive 12 hours to help my brother who's been stranded. I never get a chance to finish the paper. The next time I read, it's updated to the current date and I'm screwed.

How exactly does the newspaper subscription work?

You can mark each issue to save it. If you want to keep issues indefinitely, back them up onto your PC or USB device. Amazon deletes/overwrites eventually - I'm not sure as to the difference between newspapers & magazines as to how many issues Amazon will store for you. On DX & K2 your saved back issues are put in an archive (like your Amazon purchases) at the end of your home page listings.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by slayda

The people who purchased these books were not purposely infringing copyrights

Just to be clear, the people who purchased these books did not commit copyright infringement at all. It's not a matter of whether it was on purpose or not, there was absolutely no infringement on their part. Everything the purchaser did was completely legal.

The seller/distributor violated copyright, not the buyer. The buyer legally bought and owned the eBook.

[Andurian]

As I understand precedent, it has generally not been the case that customers who unknowingly purchased content that violated someone else's IP rights have lost access to that content.

I recall a game where the company who sold it didn't retain rights after the author left their employ but sold it anyhow - the company was ordered to pay a large settlement to the author (more than their profits, IIRC) and to stop selling it, but customers were specifically told by the judge in the case that they didn't have to delete or discard the game. Anyone remember the name of the game or more info?

On a personal note, going on a decade ago I bought a game (Diablo II) on ebay that once I got it was clearly pirated. I contacted the publisher of the game, mostly to inform them about the piracy and they informed me that they had no legal right to demand I destroy the disk or not install it and play it, since I had purchased it in good faith. They also made it very clear I didn't have any support options and they requested I refrain from internet play for fear I would cause problems for the other players. So it seemed they *really* wanted to tell me I couldn't use it, but their legal team insisted they not say that. (I ended up buying a legit copy anyhow - I wanted the internet play and the ability to patch the game.)

Also, on the central topic for this thread, does anyone know what Amazon's new policy really is? Apparently they won't delete things, so that would imply the customer keeps the book that is an IP violation. Presumably Amazon will have to pay the IP owner for that to be legal. What if the IP owner decides to demand $500 a copy? Or if the IP owner decides the illegal edition isn't formatted in a way they find acceptible and, hence, there is no price at all they would find acceptible?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Just to be clear, the people who purchased these books did not commit copyright infringement at all. It's not a matter of whether it was on purpose or not, there was absolutely no infringement on their part. Everything the purchaser did was completely legal.

The seller/distributor violated copyright, not the buyer. The buyer legally bought and owned the eBook.

The buyer did absolutely nothing wrong, nobody says the buyer should be punished. But since Amazon had no legal right to sell the books, the buyer could not legally take ownership and must return (in this case, delete) his copy. The buyer retains the right to sue the person who uploaded the illegal books to Amazon for damages.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The seller/distributor violated copyright, not the buyer. The buyer legally bought and owned the eBook.

The buyer is not at fault, but did not "legally buy and own" the content.

Let's say I rip a DVD, duplicate the cover, go out on the street and sell it. You, as the buyer, assume it's used, and that the transaction is 100% legit. You may have done the purchase in good faith, and the mechanisms of the purchase may have been completely legal, but it's still not a legal transaction.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The buyer did absolutely nothing wrong, nobody says the buyer should be punished. But since Amazon had no legal right to sell the books, the buyer could not legally take ownership and must return (in this case, delete) his copy. The buyer retains the right to sue the person who uploaded the illegal books to Amazon for damages.

The notion that the buyer does not take ownership and must return the copy does not exist anywhere in US copyright law. Are you confusing "selling stolen property" with "copyright infringement"? They are not the same thing, and have completely different laws which govern them.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

The buyer is not at fault, but did not "legally buy and own" the content.

Let's say I rip a DVD, duplicate the cover, go out on the street and sell it. You, as the buyer, assume it's used, and that the transaction is 100% legit. You may have done the purchase in good faith, and the mechanisms of the purchase may have been completely legal, but it's still not a legal transaction.

Yes, that is a legal transaction. You are confusing selling stolen property with unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. They are completely different things.

In your example, the buyer legally owns the DVD and the seller is guilty of copyright infringement.

If you had stolen a physical item and then tried to sell it, then the sale would not be legal and "possession of stolen goods" would apply. That is not the case with copyright infringement. Stolen property and copyright infringement are totally different.

[HansTWN]

I am no lawyer (I suspect neither are you). But as far as I know, if someone does not have legal rights to transfer something to you, anything, then you cannot take legal ownership. The only exception to that rule being money. Meaning somebody buys your car and pays you with drug money you do not have to return the money. If he exchanges your old Corolla for an illegally obtained Ferrari then you have to return the latter and sue the drug dealer to have your Corolla returned.

As for the bootleg DVD or a fake Nike T-shirt they could confiscate them, but that would rarely happen in real life. And even though most people that buy fake T-shirts do so with full knowledge but but that is hard to prove and nobody will sue you due to the negligble value. What I would like to see is just a sense of right and wrong. If you know it is not the real thing, just don't buy it! Of course, in the Amazon case you are getting your money back, so you have not really been harmed. Probably even finished reading it, so it was the same thing as a friend lending you a book.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, that is a legal transaction. You are confusing selling stolen property with unauthorized distribution of copyrighted material. They are completely different things.

Erk? I went with this example specifically to avoid conflating "intellectual property violations" with "stolen property." Counterfeit and piracy are completely different from theft and/or reselling stolen goods.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

In your example, the buyer legally owns the DVD and the seller is guilty of copyright infringement.

Nope.... Even though the buyer is acting in good faith, the entire transaction is illegitimate. There is no way that I know of to legally own a counterfeit good.

Or do you believe that a counterfeit sales transaction is, in fact, legitimized by virtue of the ignorance and/or motive of the purchaser? E.g. if I manufacture a knockoff Hermes "Birkin" handbag and sell it, that's clearly illegal. Does the act of selling it in an otherwise legal fashion (e.g. cash transaction vs stolen credit card transaction) somehow make the knockoff handbag a "legit" object? Once the sale is complete, does the counterfeit Hermes bag magically become an original? How, exactly, is it possible that the counterfeiter is performing an illegal transaction, and for the buyer the exact same transaction is treated as as legitimate?

Whether this allows the retailer to take actions to reverse the sale is probably best regarded a separate issue, but it's very clear that the content and the transaction was, without a doubt, not legitimate.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Erk? I went with this example specifically to avoid conflating "intellectual property violations" with "stolen property." Counterfeit and piracy are completely different from theft and/or reselling stolen goods.

Yes, counterfeiting and piracy are completely different from theft and stolen goods. But, counterfeiting is also completely different from copyright infringement.

Amazon being an unauthorized distributor of copyrighted material has nothing to do with counterfeiting. With copyright infringement, the actual item/product is legal. The only "violation" is that the seller did not have authorization from the copyright holder. This is a dispute between the distributor and the holder over infringement of the holder's rights, it has nothing to do with whether the item being sold is itself legal or not.

If Amazon is committing copyright infringement with DVDs (not counterfeiting), the physical DVDs are legal, it's just the authorization agreement between the distributor and the copyright holder that constitutes infringement. If Amazon is selling eBooks, the electronic files that they are selling are legally owned by Amazon and they can legally transfer ownership of those files via a sales transaction. What Amazon does not have is copyright authorization to distribute, but that does not make the files themselves illegal or void the transaction. That just means that the copyright holder and Amazon have a dispute between them over the authorization to distribute the material. Amazon has infringed on the copyright holder's right of distribution, but that does not make the product itself illegal.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am no lawyer (I suspect neither are you). But as far as I know, if someone does not have legal rights to transfer something to you, anything, then you cannot take legal ownership.

Amazon does have ownership of the files that they are selling, so they can transfer that ownership via a sales transaction. What Amazon does not have is authorization from the copyright holder for distribution. Distribution rights, and ownership rights of the product itself, are separate things. Copyright infringement is a dispute that occurs between Amazon and the copyright holder over who is authorized to distribute material. It is not a dispute over ownership of the material.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, counterfeiting and piracy are completely different from theft and stolen goods. But, counterfeiting is also completely different from copyright infringement.

It depends what it is that you're counterfeiting.

If you're producing counterfeit DVDs, you are infringing copyright.

If you're producing counterfeit Gucci handbags, you're infringing trademarks, possibly patents, and probably committing fraud, too.

In addition, in the UK at least, if you are selling something and claiming that it is something which it is not, you are breaching the "Sale of Goods" act.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It depends what it is that you're counterfeiting.

If you're producing counterfeit DVDs, you are infringing copyright.

If you're producing counterfeit Gucci handbags, you're infringing trademarks, possibly patents, and probably committing fraud, too.

In addition, in the UK at least, if you are selling something and claiming that it is something which it is not, you are breaching the "Sale of Goods" act.

None of which occurred in the Amazon case. To be more specific, the Amazon scenario had nothing to do with counterfeiting.

[HarryT]

You're right, of course. I was simply commenting on your statement that counterfeiting was "completely different" to copyright infringement. Sometimes counterfeiting does involve copyright infringement; other times it doesn't. It depends what it is that you're counterfeiting. But I entirely agree with you - the Amazon case did not involve counterfeiting in any way, shape, or form whatsoever.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, counterfeiting and piracy are completely different from theft and stolen goods. But, counterfeiting is also completely different from copyright infringement.

Egads. Split hairs much?

It's a metaphor, by the way, and it is meant to illustrate that "the sale is not legitimate" in a manner that is a better fit than a comparison to reselling stolen property. I am not suggesting that Amazon sold stolen property or counterfeit books. So to be yet even more explicit:

The e-books in question were not legitimately published.

The motives, intent and/or good faith of the buyer does not convert it a legitimate transaction.

The motives, intent and/or good faith of the publisher does not convert it a legitimate transaction.

The motives, intent and/or good faith of the retailer does not convert it a legitimate transaction.

The fact that an otherwise legitimate method (e.g. valid credit card transaction) was used does not convert it a legitimate transaction.

Nothing about the transaction could possibly convert this into a legitimate sale.

Is that metaphor-free enough for you?

Originally Posted by Shaggy

If Amazon is selling eBooks, the electronic files that they are selling are legally owned by Amazon and they can legally transfer ownership of those files via a sales transaction.

Incorrect. Amazon did not actually have the legal right to create the file in the first place, let alone distribute it. Generating an e-book file for sale when you do not have the publisher's permission does not fall under "fair use." Unless a book is in the public domain in the country where the transaction takes place, only the actual holder of the publishing rights in the US can grant Amazon the ability to create and distribute the e-book file in question.

Also, keep in mind that the proceeds of the Orwell sales were not going to the legitimate US publisher, but to a company that did not hold the proper US publishing rights. How exactly does a "legit" transaction generate revenue for the wrong publisher? Hmmmm.....

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What Amazon does not have is copyright authorization to distribute, but that does not make the files themselves illegal or void the transaction.

Then what would? Some Magic DRM Pixie Dust, perhaps?

Let's say I run an independent e-book store that sells books without any DRM. One day, Tolkien books become available for legal e-book distribution in the US. However, HarperCollins demands that all of the e-books they publish must have DRM, and explicitly denies me the right to sell and/or otherwise distribute any Tolkien e-books. If I make a non-DRM version and sell it in my store without their permission anyway, then I do "not have copyright authorization to distribute," and this in turn makes my efforts, and therefore "my files," illegal to create and distribute. The entire transaction is illegitimate, including creating the file, distributing the file, and disbursing payments.

Again whether this should void the transaction in such a way that I, as the e-book store and distributor, can revoke it and delete the files, is a separate issue. But it's clear that the sales were not legitimate.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That just means that the copyright holder and Amazon have a dispute between them over the authorization to distribute the material. Amazon has infringed on the copyright holder's right of distribution, but that does not make the product itself illegal.

Oh? Then what exactly WOULD constitute an illegal e-book or an illegal transaction?

And if this is a "legit" sale, why couldn't I set up my own non-DRM e-book store, make my own non-DRM e-books regardless of copyrights and publishing rights, and if someone tries to shut me down I can declare that "these are legitimate transactions" and on that basis, attempt to continue the sales?

Mobilereference did not have the legal right to publish Orwell's books in the US. Amazon therefore did not have the legal right to create the e-book files or to distribute them. Therefore, the purchases were not legitimate. And if you attempt to claim the sale was legitimate, then this in turn cannot be contained and would essentially license all sorts of copyright violations.