Makes me glad my reader is not connected

[BenE]

There is no difference (or should be no difference) between entering a Kindle device to remove content and entering your house to remove your furniture. In the pre-wired world, if a seller unknowingly stocked and sold illegal material, he could be liable if he did not remove it forthwith from his inventory and make a good faith effort to notify as many purchasers as possible that they were in possession of illegal material that must be returned. However no seller of a tangible product has ever had the right to enter your premises without your permission and remove anything.

The electronic model is creating a "brave new world" and if citizens are not VERY vigilant, we could be the big losers.

The idea of licensing rather than selling electronic-medium software and books is a pernicious model that creates an environment in which our privacy and right to own property outright is at risk. Except to preserve human life or to execute a lawful warrant, no one can enter my home without my prior permission. Modern electronic extensions of the bounders of my "home" should be subject to the same restrictions.

I can of course make a contract with someone in which I give him or her the right to enter my premises. Such a contract is a negotiated contract. End User License Agreements (EULAS) are adhesion contracts and I have NO reasonable way of reaching an agreement with the seller to add, remove or modify any of its stipulations. Furthermore, the manner in which such contracts are made and the style in which they are written make it impossible for many people to even know what they are deemed to have agreed to.

[BuddyBoy]

Ok, I never did finish law school, but from what I've absorbed in IP law over the years, my interpretation of this is:

a) the publisher is liable for copyright infringement;
b) Amazon would not be liable in the traditional sense as a distributor/retailer, though they would likely end up party to a lawsuit, though possible more for nuisance value;
c) the customer would not be liable, as an infringement of copyright requires the publication and dissemination, NOT simply the possession. Added to the mens rea - the state of mind - i.e. the lack of intent - and you would be hard pressed to make any case against an innocent purchaser.

Amazon's actions up until now have not be in order to protect the purchaser from litigation, but to be seen to be doing everything within their power to address any infringement and mitigate any chance of being co-opted as a co-defendant in a lawsuit.

Their actions, while possibly legal under their terms and agreement, is turning into a PR nightmare, hence their new direction.

And, to be honest, I'd love to see their actions challenged in court. There were some precedent-setting cases dealing with software licenses and leases that basically came down to "if it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck, it's a duck" - i.e. the licenses and leases were sales, and ownership to the extent of transferability was upheld. I'd like to see ebooks subjected to the same test - I wonder what that would mean for DRM?

[PKFFW]

And here I was thinking everyone loved this brave new digital world we got going here.

I keep hearing about how digital makes everything free, digital means nothing has inherent value, information wants to be set free, and because of all this authors must just accept that this is a new world we live in and move with the times.

Well I guess it works both ways. In this brave new digital world Amazon can come into your kindle and delete infringing works. It probably wont be long before every other device can do the same.

Good with the bad people.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Argel]

Don't think anyone has posted this link - some really sane comments on the underlying issues:

The Kindle's Orwellian Moment

[HarryT]

That link is to an earlier page in this same thread, Argel. I think we've all read it .

[slayda]

I wonder if future Kindles will come without a switch to turn off Whispernet thus retaining Amazon's right to enter your Kindle!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by slayda

I wonder if future Kindles will come without a switch to turn off Whispernet thus retaining Amazon's right to enter your Kindle!

Highly improbable. It is a requirement to be able to switch off the cellular radio to take a device on an aircraft. Do you think that Amazon would want to sell a device that you couldn't fly with?

Remember, too, the way that cellular radios work. If there's no signal, the radio switches to higher and higher power settings to try and find one. For people outside Sprint coverage, a Kindle with a cellular radio which couldn't be switched off would drain its battery flat in a matter of hours.

[JSWolf]

Well it's fairly obvious that the Harry Potter eBooks put out via Amazon were not legal. Even if they do a quick check, they'd be able to stop most of the illegal uploads.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Andybaby

I don't know why people are complaining about amazon in this. they should be focusing their hate on this publisher.

Amazon should require proof of the legality before allowing just anyone to uplad anything to be sold.

[krischik]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

for all those being happy that they do not have a Kindle: are you so sure that Sony (and other brands in similar ways) couldn't erase books from the Sony readers when you connect your readers to the computer via Sony's software?

I don't use Sony's Software.

I use Calibre. For once I use Mac OS X but then I did not even try to install the Software in VMWare session. What for?

[slayda]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Highly improbable. It is a requirement to be able to switch off the cellular radio to take a device on an aircraft. Do you think that Amazon would want to sell a device that you couldn't fly with?

Remember, too, the way that cellular radios work. If there's no signal, the radio switches to higher and higher power settings to try and find one. For people outside Sprint coverage, a Kindle with a cellular radio which couldn't be switched off would drain its battery flat in a matter of hours.

Harry, I learned a long time ago to not bet that technology & ingenuity can't make something happen. "Where there's a will, there's a way." Maybe not with current tech. but remember 1984. Just looking to a possible future and using imagination & wondering.

[Wetdogeared]

From CNet:

Amazon says it won't repeat Kindle book recall

The removal of two George Orwell books from the accounts of those who had already purchased them sparked an outcry from customers, bloggers, and mainstream media outlets.

[richman]

This TOPIC is right out of the 1984 Orwellian book , think about it, someone "read" a book that he was not suppose to be reading . They broke down the doors and took away his book because it was an illegal book to read by the government. The government had the right to break into his HOUSE and take the book. Now Amazon is not arresting anybody or putting a RAT cage with a Starving RAT inside it and placing it on our FACE , like in the movie of 1984. They just went into your KINDLE and took away the "offending" book! Very Cute. That is why the articles are stating "ironic" amazon story.

So funny that it happened to be 1984 BOOK that this happened with! LOL!

p.s. It's even more frightening that some people think that what Amazon did was right. In the MOVIE the masses were "chanting" whatever the government wanted them to chant. And the book was showing how "truth" didn't mean anything, the bottom line was "whatever the government said, was ALWAYS RIGHT" , and you better know what the government is saying, BECAUSE Big brother is watching. Remember in movie how all the actions were being 'watched', so Amazon IS WATCHING you with your kindle and the PEOPLE that read the BOOK or saw the MOVIE see the startling parallels. It's not your "device" and the content is not your "content" , it is the property of Amazon (government) and whatever they deem is inappropriate will be taken. Case closed.

So, YES it makes me glad that my 505 is not connected to Amazon (Big Brother).

Gee, I'm sure Amazon doesn't need to be tagged with the TERM "Big Brother" , and it has happened lately even before the 1984 book incident a few days ago , but doing the "big brother" type action with the book that started the TERM "BIG BROTHER" , is a PR NIGHTMARE in the extreme and it could STICK.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Yes, exactly. But in this case, Amazon did not publish the book. They *distributed* it. Legally there is a world of difference between publishing and distributing.

Amazon put the book in Kindle format; they formatted the book for sale. (How little editing is involved here is not the issue. Amazon, not the content provider, creates the ready-for-sale product.) Amazon pays the provider of the book a percentage of each book sold; pays royalties directly to authors for works provided by individual authors.

They're acting as a publisher, not a distributor, in many cases. Maybe all, if the formatting alone is enough to make them a publisher. (Certainly books are not available in AZW format through any other company.)

Even as a distributor, their negligent approach to confirmation of legal contents does not allow them the right to take buy individual purchases. It could--IF they got a court order demanding it. They don't get to bypass the step of "get a legal document allowing them to buy back what's been purchased from them, against customer's wishes." The customer isn't required to re-sell what they've bought to the seller at the original price.

A record store that discovers a shipment of CDs was bootlegged doesn't have the right to search customers' backpacks on their next visit, and remove those CDs and replace them with the money they spent on the CD. Especially not if the CD buyer has already marked up liner notes with notations.

[wodin]

I think the irony extends beyond Orwell, The last time it happened it was Atlas Shrugged!

Ha! There; I'm gonna make you read it!

Who is John Galt?

BTW Atlas shrugged can be downloaded <link moderated>