Student sues Amazon after Kindle eats his homework

[mgmueller]

Originally Posted by Sonist

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

The larger issue? Wow, we might loose some books and get our money back, maybe even after having read them...How can I ever again sleep at night

I agree, it will be interesting to raise questions about DRM, owning/purchasing or only renting content and issues like that.
But does anyone actually believe, we're at the brink of a monotheistic dominance of global corporate, controlling our knowledge/education?
Of course, Amazon aims for market dominance. And of course they try to force their business model onto us.
But what's actually the problem?
They took the content and might do it again. Okay, maybe we're better off, just using USB and switching off Whispernet.
Most likely you can return your Kindle, if "without Whispernet" is not an option for you.
But concerning the specific case, there's no harm. Of course everyone will have his money back.
So, obviously it's not about "loosing the book", it's about Amazon invading our privacy, accessing our readers without our consent.
But does this actually surprise anyone? I've read, Kindle has GPS and they know where you are.
So, purchasing from eBay and using it in Germany, I ALWAYS was aware, they simply might brick my unit via firmwareupdate, rendering all units outside US useless. Well, either I take that risk or I can't purchase any Kindle.
Same applies to Whispernet. They provide it without additional costs. They could cancel it anytime without warning. Again, it's totally up to me: I can use Whispernet, very well knowing they will force their philosophy onto me, as it's their technology and -again- they provide it without any additional costs. Or I decide against it and they can't do a thing.
So, from now one we can prepare. Whispernet might be a convenience (can't use it here anyway), but it may come for a price.
The only real annoyance is, we didn't know before. Did this actually cause any harm?

For me, it's all kind of similar to Windows Update. Lots of my friends don't use it, because they're worried, MS might check what they have installed on their PCs. It's not legal, but who knows?
So, either I use it, very well knowing, something might go wrong. Maybe they could plant a program, which renders illegal Office installations useless? Or I decide against the risk and don't connect.
As long as you can switch off Windows update or Whispernet, where's the problem?

And finally concerning Amazon's ethics and behavior:
I guess they simply had to stick to deadlines. And they had to prove, there aren't any copies on Kindles around anymore.
What they've done, probably was the fastest way, instead of informing all buyers and discussing, whether those would be willing to accept a credit note and delete the book.
Maybe there even was a court order? Something as "if Amazon informs their buyers, they easily could make backup copies on their PCs. So Amazon HAS to delete the books from the readers". (And maybe even they had to make sure, backups can't be used any more? Maybe next firmware update will contain a "killer" for those backup files, uploaded afterwards from PC?).

And there even are intense discussions, whether one actually even owns eBooks. Or whether one just obtains the right to read them - a right which can be cancelled anytime.

AND: I'm pretty sure, you would be able to return your Kindle, referencing to having lost your trust. Most likely all of us have a simple choice: Purchase Kindle and use Whispernet, provided "for free" and follow Amazon's lead. Or don't purchase it respectively return it.....Or purchase it but don't use Whispernet. It's still fully workable without Whispernet (tons of Kindles have been sold outside of the US) and Amazon's competition doesn't have it anyway.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

I'm sorry if I offended you. It was meant to be a joke and I made the change in your words explicit to that end.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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

That sounds almost as annoying as somebody purposely misunderstanding another person for the sake of making an uninteresting and belabored point.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Rather.

First, he's not an adult in the US until he's 18. This is not "ageism," it's a legal definition; he's still a minor. Second, he's still a student. Even if he wasn't, 17 year olds who pull down $70k a year or make $200 an hour are, to put it mildly, a rarity.

That said, I don't believe there is a specific formula that is used to determine damages, and it's probably not based in this case on something like "lost wages."

Ageism is ignoring legal nuances like the possibility of emancipation as of the age of 16 in many (most?) legal jurisdictions within the United States (after which a person as young as 16 would be legally considered an adult for most [all?] legal intents and purposes), along with the fact that a 17 year old that is reasonably competent can perform a lot of work that people 5 to 10 years older are paid significantly more for. (And may easily have a job that pays [even him] somewhere in the lower vicinity of what is a middle class income, or the upper vicinity of what is a lower class one.)

I don't think there is a specific formula either. But I do feel it offends human dignity to question his time's/self's fundamental worth on account his age, whose social significance is generally interpreted by what are essentially laws that were originally designed to cement fathers' control of their daughter's virginity and/or spousal choice.

- Ahi

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

The larger issue? Wow, we might loose some books and get our money back, maybe even after having read them...How can I ever again sleep at night

I agree, it will be interesting to raise questions about DRM, owning/purchasing or only renting content and issues like that.
But does anyone actually believe, we're at the brink of a monotheistic dominance of global corporate, controlling our knowledge/education?
Of course, Amazon aims for market dominance. And of course they try to force their business model onto us.
But what's actually the problem?
They took the content and might do it again. Okay, maybe we're better off, just using USB and switching off Whispernet.
Most likely you can return your Kindle, if "without Whispernet" is not an option for you.
But concerning the specific case, there's no harm. Of course everyone will have his money back.
So, obviously it's not about "loosing the book", it's about Amazon invading our privacy, accessing our readers without our consent.
But does this actually surprise anyone? I've read, Kindle has GPS and they know where you are.
So, purchasing from eBay and using it in Germany, I ALWAYS was aware, they simply might brick my unit via firmwareupdate, rendering all units outside US useless. Well, either I take that risk or I can't purchase any Kindle.
Same applies to Whispernet. They provide it without additional costs. They could cancel it anytime without warning. Again, it's totally up to me: I can use Whispernet, very well knowing they will force their philosophy onto me, as it's their technology and -again- they provide it without any additional costs. Or I decide against it and they can't do a thing.
So, from now one we can prepare. Whispernet might be a convenience (can't use it here anyway), but it may come for a price.
The only real annoyance is, we didn't know before. Did this actually cause any harm?

For me, it's all kind of similar to Windows Update. Lots of my friends don't use it, because they're worried, MS might check what they have installed on their PCs. It's not legal, but who knows?
So, either I use it, very well knowing, something might go wrong. Maybe they could plant a program, which renders illegal Office installations useless? Or I decide against the risk and don't connect.
As long as you can switch off Windows update or Whispernet, where's the problem?

And finally concerning Amazon's ethics and behavior:
I guess they simply had to stick to deadlines. And they had to prove, there aren't any copies on Kindles around anymore.
What they've done, probably was the fastest way, instead of informing all buyers and discussing, whether those would be willing to accept a credit note and delete the book.
Maybe there even was a court order? Something as "if Amazon informs their buyers, they easily could make backup copies on their PCs. So Amazon HAS to delete the books from the readers". (And maybe even they had to make sure, backups can't be used any more? Maybe next firmware update will contain a "killer" for those backup files, uploaded afterwards from PC?).

And there even are intense discussions, whether one actually even owns eBooks. Or whether one just obtains the right to read them - a right which can be cancelled anytime.

AND: I'm pretty sure, you would be able to return your Kindle, referencing to having lost your trust. Most likely all of us have a simple choice: Purchase Kindle and use Whispernet, provided "for free" and follow Amazon's lead. Or don't purchase it respectively return it.....Or purchase it but don't use Whispernet. It's still fully workable without Whispernet (tons of Kindles have been sold outside of the US) and Amazon's competition doesn't have it anyway.

ummmm,....errrrrr.....noooooo, they can't just cancel Whispernet...it is the integral part of the system and part of the original service and hardware purchase. Unless via some subterfuge Amazon changed the purchase agreement the only part of the Whispernet that Amazon specifically and explicitly indicates can be disabled is the ability to browse the web. That specific portion of the service is tagged as experimental. Whispernet itself is part of the whole.

[Harmon]

[QUOTE=Gladtobemom;539276]Why couldn't Amazon have stopped selling the book, then turned the money received for it over to the publisher. This would have adequately covered the publisher's profits off of the sales. Publishers don't make more than a buck for a paperback of a non upgrade type paperback. QUOTE]

Maybe the owner wouldn't accept that. Their strategy might involve keeping the book from being etext at all. Unfortunately, the copyright laws kind of assume that the owners will be interested in exploiting their ownership rights by making "sales," but that assumption ignores basic human orneriness, and did not anticipate an entire new mode of publication that owners might not want to engage in.

Personally, I think that copyright ownership should be contingent on publication, and if some owner decides not to publish in a particular mode, then he should lose his copyright in that mode much sooner than otherwise.

So if the owners of 1984 don't see any profit in publishing in etext, fine. They shouldn't be able to prevent someone else from taking the chance. Likewise, if Disney decides to withdraw Mickey Mouse's Excellent Adventure from DVD distribution, then someone else should be able to distribute it.

Use it or lose it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Personally, I think that copyright ownership should be contingent on publication.

That does make some sense. What's the point in granting someone a monopoly on distribution if they are not interested in distributing? Obviously, in such a case, benefiting from distribution has nothing to do with encouragement for additional creation (which is theoretically what copyright is supposed to be for).

[Harmon]

Don't see that anyone's directly pointed to the actual Complaint:
http://www.prnewschannel.com/pdf/Amazon_Complaint.pdf

The part of the complaint that intrigues me is the one involving "trespass to chattels." http://ilt.eff.org/index.php/Trespass_to_Chattels

I'm not knowledgable about remedies to trespass to chattels, but I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the normal remedy is return of the property, if it still exists. So deep down in this complaint is the issue of exactly who owns an infringing copy of a copyrighted work. But there also seems to be a question about what exactly the property consists of - that is, what, if anything, Amazon actually sold to the user/buyers.

The complaintants have to come in & say "Amazon sold me the ebook and it's mine." Amazon's line of defense is (a) it wasn't a sale, but a lease under which we had the right to retrieve improperly conveyed property and (b) if it was a sale, we didn't have the right to sell it to you so you can't actually own it. I think that the court will easily knock out the second defense, on the basis that Amazon can't be allowed to claim that its own malfeasance is a defense to its actions.

So that leaves us with (a). I don't think Amazon will want to wade into thost muddy waters. Anticipate a hefty settlement.

[Shaggy]

US courts have already ruled on (a). It was a sale.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Amazon's line of defense is (a) it wasn't a sale, but a lease under which we had the right to retrieve improperly conveyed property

No. If it's illegal when a person does it, it's illegal when a corporation does it.

Amazon illegally sold a book, thereby committing copyright infringement, and to remedy their actions they stole the eBooks back from their customers (in a far more real way than in which piracy can be seen as stealing).

Their providing an unrequested refund really does nothing to mitigate any of those things, regardless of whether or not it makes anybody feel better.

- Ahi

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Maybe the owner wouldn't accept that. Their strategy might involve keeping the book from being etext at all.

In this case, the rights holder *does* sell ebook versions; Amazon sells 1984 for ~$10 for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

So this wasn't a situation like the Rand or Rowling books, where the rights holder has, for whatever reasons, not released an ebook version--this is about people choosing the $1 version instead of the $10 version, and Amazon then realizing it didn't have the right to sell the $1 version through a different publisher.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

In this case, the rights holder *does* sell ebook versions; Amazon sells 1984 for ~$10 for Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

So this wasn't a situation like the Rand or Rowling books, where the rights holder has, for whatever reasons, not released an ebook version--this is about people choosing the $1 version instead of the $10 version, and Amazon then realizing it didn't have the right to sell the $1 version through a different publisher.

I blame Amazon for this debacle. It is Amazon's fault for allowing unverified eBooks to be upload to the site and sold. For all we know, there could still be unauthorized ebook there. Amazon needs to stop allowing eBooks to be sold without first verifying them. Yes I know this will cause a lot more work for Amazon, but it will also solve these sort of problems and I do hope the homework kid wins.