Kindle user says Amazon remotely wiped her whole library [UPDATED: see first post]

[John F]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Thanks, HansTWN. For the sake of discussion, here is my proposal for "social DRM":

Media files are sold (not licensed) to buyers. When a buyer downloads a media file, her/his own copy of it includes embedded metadata that allow the seller to identify who bought it, and when. Buyers can do whatever they want with their files, such as giving a copy of them to their family; on the other side, they have a responsibility in the consequences of what they do.

If a media file gets illegally distributed (e.g., it is published on a torrent site) the original buyer of that file is considered responsible of illegal distribution along with the actual distributor, unless one or both of the following conditions apply:

1) on day X, before the illegal distribution, the owner of the file notified the police of a theft of property or data which included media files, and the illegally distributed file was purchased before day X;

2) the file owner is able to identify the physical person who actually distributed the file, and this person confirms to have done that, taking all the responsibility of the act.

How about a third condition:

3) on day X, before the illegal distribution, the owner of the file transferred ownership of the file to entity E.

[BoldlyDubious]

Very good points. I'll try to address them, but proposals for amendments are of course welcome :-)

Originally Posted by JoeD

The issue I take with this, is that unlike knowing your car/computer has been stolen because it's clearly not where you left it

You are right, but this is a general problem and not one specific to "theft" of media. As an increasing part of our lives takes the form of data, including sensitive data of several types, everyone of us needs to be aware of the risks and countermeasures.
That said, if someone just doesn't feel happy (or technically competent enough) to manage the security of her/his own media library, they can choose to let it reside on the media vendor's servers and access it via their own proprietary devices and/or programs only. In other words, just as it is today, but with a crucial difference: that it will be a choice of the user, not of the vendor.
If, on the other hand, I want to download everything and keep it (without restrictions to copying/backing up) on my own PC, I should be allowed to do so, provided that I take my own responsibilities.

Originally Posted by JoeD

What about anyone who takes their PC for repair and has an unscrupulous employee copy some music/books whilst they're backing up the machine to reinstall?

In my view, if I have on my PC some data that -if illegally distributed- can damage someone else I have the responsibility to prevent that untrusted people can get at them. This includes media, but also my aunt's bank data. I certainly would not leave an unencrypted media library on a PC that I give to someone for repair.
Again: if a person don't know/want to take adequate security countermeasures, they can avoid keeping the files on their own machines. It's their own choice.

Originally Posted by JoeD

[...]you'll have people accused of file sharing facing life ruining fines.

I think that if an effectively enforceable system to track down illegally distributed files to the original owner were in place, reasonably small fines (say, a total of a few hundreds of dollars or euros) would be more than sufficient.
Getting (or knowing that your neighbor got) one of such fines would make people much more wary of possible consequences... and thus much less likely to incur such consequences.
Life ruining files are the current way to scare people into complying to laws that everyone knows are, in practice, almost unenforceable. (I mean, how many massive uploaders have been actually caught?)

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Media files are sold (not licensed) to buyers. When a buyer downloads a media file, her/his own copy of it includes embedded metadata that allow the seller to identify who bought it, and when. Buyers can do whatever they want with their files, such as giving a copy of them to their family; on the other side, they have a responsibility in the consequences of what they do.

If a buyer can "do whatever they want" with a file that contains the text of a book, then when you say "media files are sold (not licensed)" you're really say that the full copyright is sold. So, and this goes to HarryT's point I think, it then doesn't make sense to talk about "illegal distribution". If I have bought the right to do whatever I like with a file then how can my distributing that file be illegal. As soon as you say that there's a restriction on what I really can do you're back to talking about licensing, you're just arguing about what the terms of the license should be.

I think this is clearer if you consider that a file is not a physical object but an abstract concept represented through a physical object. So comparing the ebook (a file) to a pbook (an object) is not helpful. The comparison to the pbook is more properly the hard-drive or memory chip that the ebook lives on. The ebook itself is the exact set of words (along with some formatting info) of the "book". The problem is we use the word book in two ways - to mean the set of words, and to mean a physical object.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by John F

How about a third condition:
3) on day X, before the illegal distribution, the owner of the file transferred ownership of the file to entity E.

Mmmm, I think this is not feasible. For the first 10 seconds, it seemed an excellent idea to me, because it reintroduces the possibility of selling books or music that we always had with physical media.
However, on second thought I decided that this possibility is something that we should accept to have lost with the switch to infinitely copiable media files. Otherwise, what would prevent me from buying media, then making a copy of them, and finally reselling the media? This would constitute a damage to the author (and media vendor).

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by latepaul

If a buyer can "do whatever they want" with a file that contains the text of a book, then when you say "media files are sold (not licensed)" you're really say that the full copyright is sold.

No. I didn't say that (in the social DRM scheme I'm proposing) you buy the intellectual property of an ebook. You buy a copy of its contents stored on file, just as you would buy a copy of its contents stored on paper.
Then, you can do whatever you want with the file you bought, but you are responsible for what you do.

By the way, in this particular case the analogy with paper books holds. If I buy a paper book, scan it and publish its contents on a torrent site I *am* infringing someone else's intellectual property.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

Sweden for example. We even have a special tax on cassette and video tapes to compensate creators for the legal friend copying.

Many countries have such a tax or levy, that doesn't mean that copying is legal.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

By the way, in this particular case the analogy with paper books holds. If I buy a paper book, scan it and publish its contents on a torrent site I *am* infringing someone else's intellectual property.

And under your proposed system, the analogy would be that if I took your paper book, scanned it and published it, you would be presumed to be guilty unless you could prove otherwise.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And under your proposed system, the analogy would be that if I took your paper book, scanned it and published it, you would be presumed to be guilty unless you could prove otherwise.

Correct. Let's get out of the analogy with pbook and back to ebooks and media files in general. According to my proposal (see post #276), if I don't trust you, I should not give you a copy of my media files.
If I trust you and you upload my media all the same, two cases are possible (after the police sends to me an email asking for the data of the person(s) I think might have uploaded my files, in this example you):
1) you admit to having uploaded the media and so you get to pay your part of the the fine while I am discharged of any responsibility;
2) you admit nothing (and so probably get out of it for free) while I get to pay my part of the fine. However, in my view I deserve the fine, for having given my files to an unreliable person liable to commit unauthorized media distribution. Next time, no books for you (if I ever talk to you again!).

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Sorry, are you saying that if I lend someone a hammer and they use it to rob a jewellery shop then I am responsible

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

No, I am saying that -in exchange for the freedom to really own my media files (NOT a license to them) and do whatever I want with them (including giving them to other people of my choosing)- I would accept to be partly responsible if I make a wrong choice and some of these people decide to illegally distribute my files.

I don't quite understand why you say that MikeB1972 is wrong. In his example, he really owns the hammer (he doesn't have a licence), and in your proposed idea, you'd really own the files, instead of having a licence.

Why is there a difference between him giving someone his hammer and them doing something bad with it, and you giving someone your files and them doing something bad with them?

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Correct. Let's get out of the analogy with pbook and back to ebooks and media files in general. According to my proposal (see post #276), if I don't trust you, I should not give you a copy of my media files.
If I trust you and you upload my media all the same, two cases are possible (after the police sends to me an email asking for the data of the person(s) I think might have uploaded my files, in this example you):

So in your proposal you would only ever share media with one person?
And they would never share it with anyone else?
Otherwise, how would you know it was me, rather than someone else you had shared the file with? Or someone they had shared it with, and on and on and on.
Or are you going to send the police a list of all people you have ever shared the file with? And are they going to contact them and ask for lists of all the people they have shared the file with, and so on?

1) you admit to having uploaded the media and so you get to pay your part of the the fine while I am discharged of any responsibility;
2) you admit nothing (and so probably get out of it for free) while I get to pay my part of the fine. However, in my view I deserve the fine, for having given my files to an unreliable person liable to commit unauthorized media distribution. Next time, no books for you (if I ever talk to you again!).

3) it wasn't me who shared it, it was:
a) one of the other people you shared it with
b) one of the people they shared it with, ad infinitum
c) someone who gained access to the computers of any of the above people without their knowledge
d) someone who put your identification in the file to cause you hassle, and the file never came from you in the first place

Strong identification is only possible with un-modifiable files, so with are right back to DRM again.

[avantman42]

I think these two quotes illustrate the main points that I don't like about this proposal:

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

However, in my view I deserve the fine, for having given my files to an unreliable person liable to commit unauthorized media distribution.

I don't like the idea that someone should be prosecuted for something they didn't do.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

d) someone who put your identification in the file to cause you hassle, and the file never came from you in the first place

BoldlyDubious seems to assume that the identification in the file can always be trusted, to the extent that it alone is sufficient evidence to provide proof for prosecution. That idea makes me very uncomfortable indeed.

I suspect BoldlyDubious and I will never reach agreement on this.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I don't quite understand why you say that MikeB1972 is wrong. In his example, he really owns the hammer (he doesn't have a licence), and in your proposed idea, you'd really own the files, instead of having a licence.

As I wrote in the same post you quoted from:

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

I'm saying that if someone breaks into my shed, steals my gun and I do not report that to the police and then uses my gun to commit some crime, I have a responsibility.

If I know that someone robbed me of my files (physically or through unauthorized access), I only have to report that to the police. That discharges me if any of these filed gets illegally distributed. This does not seem unreasonable to me.

Of course if I report a "media theft" a week, the police could get a trifle suspicious... :-)

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Or are you going to send the police a list of all people you have ever shared the file with?

This one. Again, it's my responsibility -if I choose to share my media files with others- to keep the number of these small, and restricted to the people who can really be trusted not to give away my files to others. If I give my files to anyone who asks, why shouldn't I be (partially) guilty if any of these gets illegally distributed in the end?

Originally Posted by murraypaul

d) someone who put your identification in the file to cause you hassle, and the file never came from you in the first place.

Can't happen. Could work only if the file is one that I actually bought. Of course, if you have made enemies with the CIA, this could be an issue ;-)

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

This one. Again, it's my responsibility -if I choose to share my media files with others- to keep the number of these small, and restricted to the people who can really be trusted not to give away my files to others. If I give my files to anyone who asks, why shouldn't I be (partially) guilty if any of these gets illegally distributed in the end?

So what is your answer to:

1) [...] how would you know it was me, rather than someone else you had shared the file with? Or someone they had shared it with, and on and on and on.

2) Or are you going to send the police a list of all people you have ever shared the file with? And are they going to contact them and ask for lists of all the people they have shared the file with, and so on?

[avantman42]

Originally Posted by avantman42

I don't quite understand why you say that MikeB1972 is wrong. In his example, he really owns the hammer (he doesn't have a licence), and in your proposed idea, you'd really own the files, instead of having a licence.

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

As I wrote in the same post you quoted from:

Of course if I report a "media theft" a week, the police could get a trifle suspicious... :-)

MikeB1972 made two points. The second was:

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

And even worse, if someone breaks into my shed, steals my hammer, then robs the jewellery shop I am still responsible.

I accept that you've addressed that one with the above point about reporting the theft.

However, the point I was referring to was:

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Sorry, are you saying that if I lend someone a hammer and they use it to rob a jewellery shop then I am responsible

You responded to that with:

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

No, I am saying that -in exchange for the freedom to really own my media files (NOT a license to them) and do whatever I want with them (including giving them to other people of my choosing)- I would accept to be partly responsible if I make a wrong choice and some of these people decide to illegally distribute my files.

Why is there a difference between MikeB1972 giving someone his hammer and them doing something bad with it, and you giving someone your files and them doing something bad with them?