Student Suing Amazon For Book Deletions 646
Stupified writes "High school student Justin Gawronski is suing Amazon for deleting his Kindle copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four (complaint, PDF), because doing so destroyed the annotations he'd created to the text for class. The complaint states: 'The notes are still accessible on the Kindle 2 device in a file separate from the deleted book, but are of no value. For example, a note such as "remember this paragraph for your thesis" is useless if it does not actually reference a specific paragraph.' The suit, which is seeking class action status, asks that Amazon be legally blocked from improperly accessing users' Kindles in the future and punitive damages for those affected by the deletion. Nothing in Amazon's EULA or US copyright law gives them permission to delete books off your Kindle, so this sounds like a plausible suit."
Derivative work (Score:5, Interesting)
Given the other absurdities of copyright law, and how the RIAA's lawyer think that disappearing purchases are normal in every area of life, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawyer claim that the annotations are in fact a derivative work of the book, and that since Amazon had no right to sell the book, then the student had no right to create the annotations.
Also, there's probably some boilerplate legal language included with the Kindle that says they are not responsible for data loss, etc., or if it kills your grandmother or dog.
They didn't have the right to sell it... (Score:1, Interesting)
Amazon didn't know that it was still under copyright in the US, and didn't have the rights to sell it. When they discovered their mistake, they took it back -- removing the books and refunding the buyers' money. Damages paid to rights-holders are given to compensate for the fact that the violator can't remove every copy of the infringing product they sold; but in this case, they were able to. If this was anything except 1984, this wouldn't have been news at all.
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
This was the kind of place where the parents got mad when teachers had grade schoolers read Harry Potter.
No case (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Hrrm (Score:5, Interesting)
The company that sold it didn't have the rights to it in the US. The legal publisher complained and Amazon pulled the book.
Yes, but Amazon's solution to the "books" already sold may have been illegal.
For example, if they had sold a paper copy of 1984 illegally, they aren't allowed to burn down the house of anyone who purchased it. Certain actions remain illegal, despite the fact that they're address the copyright issue.
Isn't an apology enough? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Lesser of two evils? (Score:3, Interesting)
I get the feeling that this was a decision by Amazon based on what would cost them less. Either delete these and face user wrath, or let users who have the books keep them and settle monetarily with the copyright holder. I think they may have underestimated the true cost of losing reputation with their user base, lawsuit cost aside.
Wrong, the correct answer is: "We will discontinue the sale, but we can not remove existing copies from a users' devices." Then raise a stink if the publisher tries to coerce them to do otherwise.
Factual and legal errors in the summary (Score:1, Interesting)
Nothing in Amazon's EULA or US copyright law gives them permission to delete books off your Kindle, so this sounds like a plausible suit."
This is not true. The Kindle EULA states "Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use." But Amazon cannot grant rights that it does not have, and in this case Amazon did not have the right to sell the novel in the first place, which is why they were pulled. US Copyright law most definitely empowers courts to enjoin infringers to destroy or turn over copies of infringing material. There was no judgment in this case, but Amazon likely saw the writing on the wall and felt that using its control over the platform to remove the offending copies was preferable to paying a settlement to the publisher.
Imagine a physical book store that accidentally received a shipment of books meant for another store that had an exclusive deal with the publisher. If some of those books were sold before the mistake was realized, one possible remedy would be to recall the sold books, annotations and all. Normally of course the liability would be with the book seller and in the form of monetary damages rather than specific performance (i.e., return of the books). In this case, however, Amazon's control of the platform makes it easier to remove the books than a real-world recall (good luck recalling a book paid for in cash, for example).
Now, of course, the PR backlash has shown that the right choice would have been for Amazon to own the mistake and eat the loss of paying a settlement, but at the time Amazon made a judgment call that, if the publisher decided to play hardball, it would have to remove the copies eventually anyway as the result of an injunction. I think there is every reason to believe that Amazon will react differently to future mistakes.
Re:This is really freakin' cool (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it could set a precedent against deleting data from users' devices in general.
Or perhaps it could set a precedent which cements Amazon's legal right to do these things. I would certainly hope not, but it's possible. The government hasn't exactly been pro-consumer during the past few decades.
He has no case (Score:3, Interesting)
The EULA is available here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530 [amazon.com]
Specifically, it says:
Amazon modified the service by removing the book.
End of discussion.
Re:No case (Score:3, Interesting)
I disagree. The end user purchased the book in good faith and had absolutely no reason to even suspect that Amazon didn't have the US rights. What would have happened if Amazon had shipped physical books? Same sort of thing should happen. The end user still keeps the book, Amazon pays the appropriate damages to the rights-holders.
Your post brings up an interesting case. If someone buys stolen property in good faith, never believing that it was stolen then the police inform them, they have absolutely no right to keep it and in all likelihood will not get their money back.
Of course, an unauthorized-to-sell book isn't the same as stolen property so I have no idea whether or not the right to keep the product has any similarity.
Re:Legal Question (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's time for the Minute of Hate (Score:5, Interesting)
Except that our world is sliding closer and closer to a Brave New World than into 1984
Six of one, half dozen of the other. This is the best explanation I've ever seen comparing and contrasting BNW and 1984:
Did Amazon even try? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:1984 (Score:5, Interesting)
Bible-Belter here. 1984 was a required book in AP Lit.
Of course a parent did get mad when a lower grade (10th) read Dante's Inferno (near the end of the year). Then my teacher had to get permission for The Things They Carried---strangely being over 18 didn't mean you didn't have to get permission. Which then pissed off my parents and the parents of everyone else.
Re:He has no case (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A fool and his money... (Score:4, Interesting)
Why is that unlikely? High school kids have been known to have jobs, after all. I myself earned the $1500 necessary to buy an Apple //e system my senior year in high school, some 25 years ago. I had friends who bought cars. Cheap, worn-out cars, to be sure, but they still ran.
But either way, it doesn't matter. The Kindle is his, and contained his own work. He believes that Amazon willfully destroyed that work, and he's willing make an effort to get recompensed. Good for him! He's probably tilting at windmills, of course, but I applaud his effort.
Would a kid really care enough to do so? Why not? One of my classmates ran for mayor during his senior year. Not as a joke, either. It was a sincere attempt to fix problems he saw in the town and he put a lot of effort into it. He lost, but it was a credible campaign. I have no problem at all believing that a high school kid would feel wronged by Amazon and would make the effort to seek justice.
Re:1984 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:He has no case (Score:1, Interesting)
A couple of thoughts:
Re:1984 (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Lesser of two evils? (Score:3, Interesting)
They received bad legal advice on the matter, then.
This is going to cost them quite a bit more money than settling on the accidental infringement would have, I suspect.
Before, they were just guilty of infringement on those two books.
Once they removed the books in question, they were guilty of something roughly analogous to theft- refunding the money doesn't change that. If I take something of yours that I sold you and give your money back without your permission and agreement, I would be cooling my heels in a Jail cell over it. This is no different, but on a rather larger scale.
There is a consequence to this and the reckoning for Amazon over it is only beginning. It won't stop for a while yet to come.
Hacking laws (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, since it was an an actual person that punched the enter key when it came time to revoke the DRM license, I wonder if they could be hit with the criminal hacking charge. The fact that invoking DRM controls could land you in the federal pen for 20 years might be a great way get corps to knock that shit off.
Re:One word (Score:5, Interesting)
If this was anything except 1984, this wouldn't have been news at all.
Bullshit.
Then how come it wasn't news when the exact same thing happened with several Ayn Rand books [mobileread.com] a month earlier?
Re:Isn't an apology enough? (Score:1, Interesting)
No, it's not. What would be enough? Amazon restoring every last one of these people their copy of 1984, paying whatever they have to to the copyright owners to make it legal. If they then don't reclaim the rebates they sent out, they will have totally redeemed themselves in my eyes, but restoring people their books and issuing a software update that will immediately remove Amazon's ability to do this again is the bare minimum.
Fixed.
Re:1984 (Score:4, Interesting)
I disagree almost completely. It sounds like you're urging a bureaucratic solution whereby there's no direct contact between teachers and parents.
Not "no contact", but I don't think a local group of parents should be able to set the syllabus. Here in the UK the syllabus is set nationally, and although I do have reservations about the amount the government dictates *how* the syllabus is taught, I think it's a good thing we have a national syllabus.
If you're talking about reading over and above the syllabus, back in the 1960s I was given a very extensive recommended reading list (1984 was on it) and my parents decided which of the books I could read (they didn't place any restrictions on it, because my teachers were perfectly aware of what was appropriate for my age). A couple of years ago my daughter was given a very extensive recommended reading list (1984 was on it) and I decided which of the books she could read (I didn't place any restrictions on it, because her teachers were perfectly aware of what was appropriate for her age). In neither case did the teachers ask or need permission from the parents to recommend the books.
Re:Recovery (Off Topic) (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, couldn't resist that bait.
None of the basic premises of capitalism has been proven faulty or unworkable by the economic realities over the last couple of years. If anything, insane monetary policy, reckless spending and the blatant corruption of regulatory bodies has demonstrated the utter failure of big central government as an institution. Perhaps your definition varies, but I don't consider "hiring people to lobby the government for favors" to be a valid business model in a capitalistic system. Capitalism is based on the means of genuine production, not money printing, paper shuffling, government spending and a system of bailouts to a select few. Suppose that we broaden the definition of capitalism to include activities like fractional reserve banking, stock trading and real estate specualtion. Even though nothing is being produced by "capital", businesses that make bad decisions fail, go bankrupt, and get replaced by smarter healthier businesses. I don't know what you call an economic system based on government stealing money from its citizens and using it for bailouts of a politically well connected elite, but it certainly is NOT "capitalism".