Class action suit against Amazon (sign up here!)

[ebs]

Originally Posted by krisk

was it not also stated that Amazon was refunding money in these cases? that's a lot better than normal receipt of stolen goods cases. you get zilch back and a raised eyebrow if you protest oer'much

The only problem is that discussed case has nothing to do with theft or transport of stolen goods under US law - it's copyright infringement
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling..._States_(1985)

[maynard]

Originally Posted by krisk

thanks for sharin' there

You're welcome.

[BrianKStanley]

It is highly probable that Amazon violated federal "computer tampering" laws.

See http://cid-c072ace4f752027c.spaces.live.com/blog/

Under this federal statute (18 USC Sec. 1030), there may be some significance to a distinction between accessing a protected device "without authorization" and "exceeding authorized access" -- a distinction that may be relevant to the discussion freezone and GlennD were having here.

[gmvasco]

Hi, Original Poster here.
Well, without reading too much on the insults and the fanboyism of some posts, some of the posts actually make very good points, which lead me to retract from my initial statement.
I hereby apologize for this perfect example of what not present in an argument: "let me say something to all those who can see Amazon's point on this matter. You're wrong.".

I have also come to understand some finer points discussed in this thread regarding legal procedures. Nothing wrong in acknowledging our faux-pas and ignorance in some matters.

However (didn't you just knew there was one of those coming around the corner?), I still believe in the main idea I presented, which was: "Amazon is due some punishment and their customers some compensation."
- What? - you say, or if you are easily excitable and grammar impervious
- WHAT??!????!!!!! (don't you just love those?)
Well, I'll explain my point of view. I see three issues that can't easily be dismissed regarding Amazon's actions. Jurisdiction. Responsibility. Damage.

Jurisdiction:
Without admitting that that book (1984) is or is not illegal, lets supposed it is for argument's sake.
So, I bought something illegal. I didn't know I was doing it, and if I get caught, I'll have to return it. Or the police might seize it. Yes? You see where I'm going with this?
Amazon isn't the police. I understand some of you might consider it perfectly legitimate to allow some private individual or corporation to go through your purchased items, as long as they or their parent company sold said item to you.
I maintain that the book was indeed sold and that they had no right going through your Library (their name, not mine).

Responsibility: Who dropped the ball? Amazon or the person who purchased the book?
Yes, I understand the argument that Amazon is innocent and it's nobody's fault, except for some third party, the company who posted the book.
Well, (sorry, but I gotta use this one) I might not be a fancy city lawyer like my esteemed colleague here, but it seems to me that Amazon profits from all these transactions, and they should be aware of their business associates. I'm not saying it's all on Amazon's shoulders, but you certainly can't pin this on the final client. Amazon should have asked, they should have informed, they should have done a lot of things. I see they are concerned with making an easy profit, but not so much in asking questions of where the stuff they sell comes from.

Damage:
This one is pretty simple. Customers were left without the book and without notice (except for trying to sell you stuff, Amazon isn't big on communication, I think I made that point). So, there might be people that:
- Got to the middle of the book and now can't read the rest (I know, they can buy another edition, but still...)
- Had made personal and valuable annotations (this one actually is a base for a whole industry of annotated books and related publications)
- Had offered the book to someone, and are now in the cold.
- Had a presentation to deliver that used that book, only to find out 5 minutes before they don't have any book and the audience is seating.
I'll grant that it is possible NONE of these occurred. But surely you will grant me that it might have occurred. Either way, Amazon doesn't care.

That's it, have fun, be civilized, tear my argument a new one (not me though, you couldn't possibly be smarter AND stronger than me*) or even revise your position.

(*I hope not at least. But just in case, I won't post my address.)

[krisk]

Originally Posted by ebs

The only problem is that discussed case has nothing to do with theft or transport of stolen goods under US law - it's copyright infringement
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling..._States_(1985)

I'm still asking if it is not true that Amazon refunded the money?

[HarryT]

Amazon did indeed refund the money.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Sporadic

Too bad he gets an "F" for common sense

Being arrogant doesn't automagically make you right, you know.

- Ahi

[krisk]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Amazon did indeed refund the money.

thank you!

the point I was tryong to make against all of the yelling about Amazon defying peoples rights and pushing people around is that;

YOU GOT YOUR MONEY BACK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

in the real world, if you are in receipt of stolen property, the boys in blue come IN YOUR HOUSE (or place of business), take the stolen property and other stuff that just *might* resemble the stolen property, give you some legal paperwork, a raised hairy eyebrow and a hearty , when you say "but I PAID for that!!!!!!!!!!! where's my money!?"

I think given the comparison, Amazon gets a rousing gee thanks for being a decent professional!

[tompe]

Originally Posted by krisk

t
in the real world, if you are in receipt of stolen property, the boys in blue come IN YOUR HOUSE (or place of business), take the stolen property and other stuff that just *might* resemble the stolen property, give you some legal paperwork, a raised hairy eyebrow and a hearty , when you say "but I PAID for that!!!!!!!!!!! where's my money!?"

That is not automatically true if you bought it in good faith.

But a copy of a file is not property anyway so you cannot compare it to laws that are used for totally different things.

[carld]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is not automatically true if you bought it in good faith.

But a copy of a file is not property anyway so you cannot compare it to laws that are used for totally different things.

Except that people objecting to Amazon's actions have been making exactly that comparison all over this forum. It can't work both ways.

[krisk]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is not automatically true if you bought it in good faith.

But a copy of a file is not property anyway so you cannot compare it to laws that are used for totally different things.

try saying that to a US cop/judge

[tompe]

Originally Posted by krisk

try saying that to a US cop/judge

I googled on good faith rules in the US and as I understood it they exist in some form.

[krisk]

not when in posession of stolen goods

[ghostwheel]

Look, it will not help arguing endlessly about it. I think yes, others think not, and the only thing certain is that most of us obviously don't have a clue.

Why don't you talk to a lawyer? Contact the EFF, and see if you have a case, or if they think Amazon did you a big favor. Once they say there is a case, people can decide to join or not.

I'd come back after I have an answer

I copied the following from http://www.eff.org/about/contact
"EFF is a small, grassroots legal advocacy nonprofit supported by member contributions. We provide pro bono (free) legal assistance in cases where we believe we can help shape the law. Unfortunately, we have a relatively small number of very hardworking attorneys, so we do not have the resources to defend everyone who asks, no matter how deserving. If we cannot assist you, we will make every effort to put you in touch with attorneys who can. If you're in trouble, you can contact us at information@eff.org."

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by ghostwheel

...
I'd come back after I have an answer
...

Moot point now..., but here you might find an answer:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51757