Kindle Deleted Ayn Rand Content

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Neil

How about if I go onto Apple's servers and download a game.... I like the game and go to play it again and get email and a note from Apple that the game was in violation of copyright and I should delete any copies. Sure enough the game is no longer available for download. So, I delete my own copy because if I do not then I would be violating copyright -- not Apple at that point which has already removed the software from the computer they own.

This isn't the main point of your post, so I appologize for diverting the topic... but in the above example Apple violated the copyright on the game, not you. When you say that you have to delete your own copy because if you don't you will be in violation of copyright, I do not believe that is correct. Apple would have violated it when they sold you a copy without the proper authorization. You, however, have done nothing wrong.

It's a common misunderstanding, but copyright law is about unauthorized distribution, it says nothing about the person receiving the content.

Back to the Amazon situation. Amazon is the one who can get in trouble for selling/distributing the eBook without the proper authorization. Kindle owners who bought those eBooks have not violated copyright. Amazon is likely deleting the eBooks to try and cover their own butts, not because the Kindle owners themselves are committing any infringement by possessing them.

[griffonwing]

Do you think they should go after the individual who uploaded the Rand books?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Harmon

So what Amazon is doing here is not technically "mitigation." What they might be doing is trying to convince the copyright holder not to sue by restoring the situation to what it should have been in the first place - namely, that the books should not have been sold at all. It's part of an attempt to settle the matter out of court.

Exactly. Amazon has committed copyright infringement. They cannot "undo" the act. However, because it's a civil suit, not a criminal one, they can attempt to "play nice" with the rights holder to avoid being sued.

The interesting part, in my mind, is that the Kindle owners have done nothing wrong. They are not violating copyright by possessing those eBooks, only Amazon is guilty of copyright infringement for distributing them. I do not believe there is any legal reason that requires Amazon to delete the eBooks from the Kindles. They are doing so in order to appease the copyright holder, but they're doing it at the expense of their customers. I wonder if Amazon can legally negate the sale and force the item to be returned after the fact, and without the buyer's permission?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by griffonwing

Do you think they should go after the individual who uploaded the Rand books?

Theoretically, yes. I don't know if Amazon has enough information/evidence to identify them though.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Harmon

PS. Don't assume I'm the only lawyer on this thread. I might just be the only one who will admit it. There are a couple of posters I could mention <cough> lfrk <cough> who exhibit a disturbing ability to engage in legal reasoning.

As opposed to some of us who exhibit a disturbing inability.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Theoretically, yes. I don't know if Amazon has enough information/evidence to identify them though.

Presumably they uploaded these books to make money, and hence would have had to provide information which would allow them to be identified.

Personally, this is the sort of person I'd like the legal system lock up and throw away the key. It's one thing to illegally download books, but to attempt to make money from illegally uploading someone else's books - people who do that are just lowlife scum of the worst kind, in my view.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I think they're trying to claim "safe harbor" status, and compliance with the DMCA by removing questioned content after notification.

I'm not sure that would apply. In addition to what you mentioned about selling vs hosting the content, they're also not removing it from devices/servers that they own, but rather that their customer's own. I don't think they would be in the same category as an ISP responding to a DMCA takedown request.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably they uploaded these books to make money, and hence would have had to provide information which would allow them to be identified.

Possibly, if they were fairly stupid. I would assume that the uploader knew they weren't the rights holder though, and would at least make it a little difficult to track them down.

Personally, this is the sort of person I'd like the legal system lock up and throw away the key. It's one thing to illegally download books, but to attempt to make money from illegally uploading someone else's books - people who do that are just lowlife scum of the worst kind, in my view.

Yes, your rabid hatred of copyright infringers is well known. I'm not sure if this case would really qualify as criminal infringement though, so it's doubtful jail time would be an appropriate punishment (let alone "throwing away the key", which is just insane for something like this).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yes, your rabid hatred of copyright infringers is well known. I'm not sure if this case would really qualify as criminal infringement though, so it's doubtful jail time would be an appropriate punishment (let alone "throwing away the key", which is just insane for something like this).

Sorry - someone who sells an illegally copied book, DVD, or whatever, for the specific purpose of making money from it is not committing a criminal copyright violation in the US? They sure as heck are in the UK!

It is this specific act - attempting to make money from selling illegally-copied material - that I have a "rabid hatred" of, Shaggy. I think it's truly despicable.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry - someone who sells an illegally copied book, DVD, or whatever, for the specific purpose of making money from it is not committing a criminal copyright violation in the US? They sure as heck are in the UK!

It would have to be the government that went after them though, and I'm not sure that would really happen in a "small time" case where somebody uploads a book to Amazon. Usually you only see criminal copyright charges in large bootleg operations. I'm not sure if the government is going to waste their time going after one guy who uploaded a couple books.

More likely, I think the copyright holder would be the one that brought a suit, and that would be a civil trial, not criminal.

It is this specific act - attempting to make money from selling illegally-copied material - that I have a "rabid hatred" of, Shaggy. I think it's truly despicable.

You believe that sending someone to jail for the rest of their life (throw away the key) is an appropriate punishment for trying to sell material that didn't belong to them? You consider it to be on the same level as committing murder?

[Phebe]

Originally Posted by Sporadic

If you really want to read these books so bad and you don't care about Ayn Rand getting any money, just pirate them.

- edit And it's funny how most of the people who are getting their panties in a bunch don't own Kindles. PRS-505 owners going "glad I don't have whispernet now"

Good idea, Sporadic: how do I do that pirating?

Because it's a real problem, and I understand very well why someone uploaded Atlas Shrugged onto the Kindle site.

I've looked everywhere for this book in a readable form and I cannot find it. The paperback my library and local bookstore carries has 6 point font: I am not kidding, 6 points, I have some expertise on this issue of font size. The book is huge and like all big books published in paperback, they cut the type size WAY down because there are serious limits on how many pages you can get into paper binding.

On Alibris and Abebooks reasonable hardbacks from old times are unavailable. There is no text version on the Internet that I have found. So far.


BUT -------- SONY and Amazon Kindle don't carry them! If they did, we could get the type size up to a readable level. And that's the issue, really. I can't find the newer hardbacks to look at them and see if they are readable and I don't want to spend $25 on a pig in a poke.

It's quite annoying that basic popular classics like Atlas Shrugged are not available on the eReaders owing to some sort of "screw you" policy by the publishers, presumably.

For that reason, I'd download a pirate copy in a New York minute ---- I'm VERY willing to pay money, I would prefer to pay money, but the publishers aren't selling a readable copy if your eyes happen to be over 40 years old, so the heck with them.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You believe that sending someone to jail for the rest of their life (throw away the key) is an appropriate punishment for trying to sell material that didn't belong to them? You consider it to be on the same level as committing murder?

No of course I don't - it's a figure of speech. However, I certainly believe that the punishment for it should be a deterrent. When someone can make many £1000s from selling pirate DVDs from a market stall over a weekend, a £100 fine isn't going to be much of a punishment or a deterrent from doing it again. I'd certainly like to see a short jail sentence for such an act.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Phebe

For that reason, I'd download a pirate copy in a New York minute ---- I'm VERY willing to pay money, I would prefer to pay money, but the publishers aren't selling a readable copy if your eyes happen to be over 40 years old, so the heck with them.

One option would be to buy the paperback, and then download a "pirated" copy in order to have a more usable version of the content that you bought. That may or may not be legal depending on where you are, but it may be better on your conscience. I'm not sure if many people would really have a problem with doing something like that in such a case. The Publisher shouldn't have anything to complain about.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Presumably they uploaded these books to make money, and hence would have had to provide information which would allow them to be identified.

Personally, this is the sort of person I'd like the legal system lock up and throw away the key. It's one thing to illegally download books, but to attempt to make money from illegally uploading someone else's books - people who do that are just lowlife scum of the worst kind, in my view.

It is possible they uploaded the books to make them available, and were taking no money for it--giving a false ID and a nonexistent bank account number (because they had to know the books would be noticed, and their info traced), setting the initial price as low as Amazon would allow; it's possible that Amazon automatically raised the price when demand was high. (I have no idea how Amazon does pricing for user-uploaded ebooks.)

Even given the despicable nature of making money illegally off someone else's copyrighted material (as contrasted with the entirely-legal coercive scams that authors and musicians are often pushed into), I can't get too worked up over whatever percentage of the value of a few thousand books this person got through this scam.

Watching the US banking industry over the last year has brought me a certain tolerance for scams that cost less than a million dollars, that ruin less than a dozen careers. I'm not concerned the the prosecution of petty criminals when scheming masterminds lose their pensions--but not their mansions--when they get caught.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No of course I don't - it's a figure of speech. However, I certainly believe that the punishment for it should be a deterrent. When someone can make many £1000s from selling pirate DVDs from a market stall over a weekend, a £100 fine isn't going to be much of a punishment or a deterrent from doing it again. I'd certainly like to see a short jail sentence for such an act.

That's basically what the punishment for criminal infringement is. The only question though, is whether it's "worth it" to spend taxpayer money to punish this specific individual. The government would have to spend their resources going after this person, and I'm not sure if there's enough benefit in them pursuing such a "small fish". I think the more likely outcome would be a lawsuit from the rights holder, rather than a criminal investigation/arrest/trial.