Student Suing Amazon For Book Deletions

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."

1984

[sys.stdout.write]

What class has 1984 as required reading and where can I sign up?

Re:1984

[wstrucke]

We read that book in my HS english class as well. I'm surprised that you're surprised by that.

Re:1984

[sys.stdout.write]

I grew up in a conservative rural area, maybe it's different elsewhere.

This was the kind of place where the parents got mad when teachers had grade schoolers read Harry Potter.

Re:1984

[Omniscient Lurker]

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:

[networkBoy]

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt [gutenberg.net.au]

Re:1984

[clone53421]

Yeah, the Australian site has it.

Wikipedia says it's public domain in Canada, Australia, and Russia, and apparently other unnamed countries. However, it will not be public domain until the year 2044 in the US and 2020 in the E.U.

Re:1984

[Minwee]

However, it will not be public domain until the year 2044 in the US and 2020 in the E.U.

You're forgetting about the "Take Your Stinking Paws Off Of Mickey Mouse, You Dirty Ape" Copyright Extension Act of 2022, which will extend US copyrights until one hundred years after the death of the last surviving family member of the creator.

Re:

[clone53421]

No, they just want you to pay for it here.

Re:1984

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

1984 isn't on either side of the "conservative-liberal" spectrum, it is heavily on the freedom side of the "freedom-fascism" spectrum which is orthogonal to the "conservative-liberal" spectrum.

Re:Recovery (Off Topic)

[moeinvt]

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".

Re:Recovery (Off Topic)

[lymond01]

The other side of the coin is that we probably wouldn't need even non-corrupt regulatory bodies if capitalism didn't breed a bunch of greedy egomaniacs. Capitalism and the free market is flawed from the outset because it favors a person over the people. We're not predator/prey. We're a society of varying people who contribute in different ways, not in all monetarily significant ways.

But the difficult part is that capitalism brings out the worst in people -- you see yourself earning more because you were innovative. That's a good thing. But now you see what money can provide, but your innovative streak has run out or perhaps you're tired of being competitive...but you still want the money.

So you start to screw people out of theirs. You give them bad loans to get the bonus associated with them. You give yourself a million dollar bonus because your company went completely bankrupt but not insolvent so you "saved" it -- and you let your employees take the bullet for you.

Capitalism dates back to a less civilized structure. Let's grow up a bit.

Re:1984

[stainless-steel-vash]

Not all schools have it as required reading. I read it on my own while in High School, and currently re-reading it. We were assigned Brave New World, but not 1984. Kind of odd. I wonder, when this goes to court, will it be tried in Room 101? And if he loses, will he be deleted, or re-educated.

Re:

[jarodss]

If he looses he will become an un-person and all traces of him will cease to exist.

Re:

[wstrucke]

the more things change the more they stay the same

Re:

[digitig]

Of course they should have a say. They should exercise it through the ballot box.

Re:

[honkycat]

I disagree almost completely. It sounds like you're urging a bureaucratic solution whereby there's no direct contact between teachers and parents. Is that really what you want? I sure as hell don't. Increased contact between parents and teachers is exactly what we want; that way there's less disconnect between classroom and home learning, and really that's how it should be.

I'm all in favor of kids reading freely, but there are certainly issues about appropriateness of particular books to particular age

Re:1984

[digitig]

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:

[DrLang21]

Absolutely not. Parents are free to home school their children all they want.

Re:

[wstrucke]

Parents know better than the government. It should be between the teachers and parents, not the teachers and the State.

Re:1984

[lymond01]

It shows in the updated reading list that your school has never read 1984 and has always been assigned I Am the Cheese.

Re:1984

[sconeu]

I Am the Cheese is from Eastasia.

I Am the Cheese has always been from Eastasia.

Re:1984

[Norsefire]

Any class that leads into a career in politics.

Only it's not "required reading" per se, more like a text-book.

Re:

[Darkness404]

My Modern British Literature high school class had it as required reading.

Re:1984

[Runaway1956]

The article doesn't say that the book was required reading. TFA states that he was using at least one paragraph for reference in his thesis. There is little to suggest how much of the book he was using, nor how many other books he was using for background material.

The question has little to do with "required reading", but with a customer's rights. This student apparently paid for a legal copy of a book, and was using it in his studies. He has a valid complaint, IMHO - although his complaint is no more, and no less valid than that of a more casual user of Amazon's services. Breaking a contract, on the end user's part, is punishable by law, and often accompanied by punitive fees, penalties, and charges. Amazon has obviously broken a contract, so they should be looking at the same sort of penalties, scaled to fit.

Re:1984

[maxume]

The nice thing about being assigned Catcher in the Rye is that it gives you context when you have to deal with people who were moved by it.

This is really freakin' cool

[TofuMatt]

As cool as Amazon can be, this was a lame move by them from many perspectives, and I hope this guy wins the case. Perhaps it could set a precedent against deleting data from users' devices in general.

Re:This is really freakin' cool

[wstrucke]

.... or another reminder to make sure to add every possible clause to the EULA so the vendor can do whatever they like.

Re:This is really freakin' cool

[TooMuchToDo]

Won't work. If a contract is one-sided, with a huge benefit to one party but little benefit to the other ("fair exchange"), a judge will typically null the contract (in this case, a EULA).

Re:

[Cyner]

Parent is correct. A contract can be Unconscionable [wikipedia.org] under US law.

Re:This is really freakin' cool

[tsm_sf]

That's not the way it works. It is frightening that you'd think this was an acceptable or legal practice, but then I see plenty of pro-authoritarian posts on slashdot these days.

Re:This is really freakin' cool

[TooMuchToDo]

Umm, no. Whether something is a luxury item or not matters not at all in contract law. The principal still applies. You can sign a contract with an auto maker that says you own the car but they can take it back at anytime even if you own it, and they can come and *try* to take it, but a judge is going to bitchsmack them for the contract inequity, and nullify it.

For more research, google "contract inequity"

Re:This is really freakin' cool

[nine-times]

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.

Re:This is really freakin' cool

[shutdown -p now]

While true, this particular case seems to be very well-founded. I especially like how he doesn't sue them just for deleting the book (even though that's really what we would all like to get rid of), but for actual loss that he suffered as a result. It should make people who wouldn't otherwise take sides in that debate be much more sympathetic.

Precedent

[_KiTA_]

As cool as Amazon can be, this was a lame move by them from many perspectives, and I hope this guy wins the case. Perhaps it could set a precedent against deleting data from users' devices in general.

Precedent is indeed the right worry here, but not quite in the way you're mentioning.

1984 was not legally sold on Amazon.com's Kindle store. It's legal in almost every other country on Earth -- basically any country without corporate overlords demanding Copyright be extended to "Age of Mickey Mouse +20 years" in perpetuity.

No, the real precedent that is very, very bad and very, very scary is that now, now publishers know that Amazon can remotely delete items from the Kindle, without user input.

Textbook companies want to sell a textbook that's only good for 1 quarter? Why not? Not like you'll need it after this year, since we're gonna release the 351st edition to make sure students can't resell the deadtree back to the bookstore.

Someone sues Amazon cause "Twilight" offends local obscenity laws? "Well golly gee, we're seeing you're connecting to a Cell tower in Bumfuck Idaho, we'll just auto-delete that Twilight book for you to avoid offending the prudes..."

Or better yet. "Hey Apple, Amazon can just delete stuff from their Kindle remotely, why can't you delete any songs with Metallica in their filename / ID3 tags that don't match up with ones they've bought from us off iPods when they dock?"

Amazon played a very bad hand here. They admitted they can screw over users on behalf of 3rd party companies. Worse, they admitted they will if asked.

A very, very bad precedent all around.

Hacking laws

[TiggertheMad]

Hacking laws on the books make it illegal to add, modify, or delete data on another person's computer without their consent. I believe it carries a pretty stiff sentence too, because it is a federal statute. I am pretty sure that Amazon has no consent from anyone when they used their DRM to kill the book, so they could be in some deep water.

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:This is really freakin' cool

[Miseph]

"Let's think about this - is Amazon the kind of company that would intentionally incite a class-action lawsuit for the purpose of setting legal precedent against the type of actions it performed?"

This question pretty much boils down to "is Amazon run by criminally insane morons?" Given that I haven't heard about any of their executives rampaging through the streets leaving trails of bodies, and given the tremendous success of Amazon in a very competitive market chock full of very big fish, I'm going to say "probably not".

"Call me a conspiracy theorist, but having this whole mess center around "1984" is a pretty big coincidence."

Ok, you're a conspiracy theorist. It's a coincidence, and a somewhat ironic one, but a coincidence nonetheless.

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi]

"Given that I haven't heard about any of their executives rampaging through the streets leaving trails of bodies"

That's because they deleted the book on it.

Derivative work

[langelgjm]

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.

Re:Derivative work

[nacturation]

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.

This isn't data loss. This is intentional destruction of data -- quite a different story.

Re:Derivative work

[siriuskase]

Unless or until copyright law mentions a difference, electronic products should be treated similarly to existing products which they claim to mimic. In this case, Amazon should have notified it's customers before recalling the books. If Amazon intends to recall by deletion, they most certainly should inform the users so that the deletion can happen at a time convenient to the customer. Burying a disclaimer in the TOS isn't a substitute since most TOS aren't written to be understandable and if I was the judge, wouldn't stand up in court unless they stated common sense, or practices that were already common. Deleting purchased software files from a customers computer is certainly not typical or expectable, unless you live in a country where books are seized an destroyed without warning. Can you imagine what would happen if Intuit suddenly deleted all existing copies of Quck Books? But, all legal issues aside, Amazon let a really big cat out of the bag. They immediately made competing products more attractive. And Kindle customers now know to make a backup copy.

Re:Derivative work

[pete-classic]

Kindle customers now know to make a backup copy.

I generally agree with your post. But this comment shows that you aren't very clear on how Kindle works. It's all wireless magic. I briefly used Kindle on iPhone. You "buy" a book and it just appears. If you have multiple devices they all know what page you're on. If you drop your Kindle in the tub, presumably you buy another one and all of the content reappears.

It's all DRMed to high-heaven, and backup isn't on Amazon's agenda.

-Peter

PS: I'm also a generally happy Amazon customer. I'll buy their digital music, but not their digital books!

Can they demand other items back?

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought when I bought something from Amazon, that I owned it!

Re:

[RobBebop]

are they going to break into my house and burn my copy?

You're thinking of a related trial that's ongoing in the state of California for San Bernadino County v. Guy Montag. The fire in question seems to have done irreparable damage to all notes that were made in the margins of his books, too.

Lesser of two evils?

[redbeardcanada]

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.

Re:

[Fujisawa Sensei]

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.

Re:

[IIH]

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

Since they have proven that they can remove the copy from the user's device (by doing so) if they said they could not, that would not be the "correct answer", it would be a lie. And, if the failure to remove the infringing data was a "will not", not a "can not", it would seem to be trivial to prove that any further infringement (by keeping it on the device) was wilful. (if they could remove it but _chose_ not to)

Re:

[langelgjm]

Since they have proven that they can remove the copy from the user's device (by doing so) if they said they could not, that would not be the "correct answer", it would be a lie.

If they said they were incapable of doing so, they'd be lying. But merely saying "we cannot do that" is different. They could argue that "we cannot do that" because of the ill-will and backlash it will cause against our business, for example.

And, if the failure to remove the infringing data was a "will not", not a "can not", it would seem to be trivial to prove that any further infringement (by keeping it on the device) was wilful. (if they could remove it but _chose_ not to)

Infringement isn't an ongoing activity. The infringing activity on Amazon's part would be distribution, which already took place (and was clearly a mistake). (In fact, just because Amazon pulled the books doesn't mean the rightsholder won't sue - they could sue for the

Ah but is it legal?

[TheLink]

While you might have the technical ability to do something, it does not necessarily mean you have the legal right to do something.

Gary McKinnon had the technical ability to get into certain computer systems and look at the data (he did not delete stuff), but he didn't have the legal right to do it, so he's facing extradition to the USA and potentially quite a number of years in prison.

Amazon had the technical ability to get into certain computer systems (Kindles) and delete the data. And Amazon deleted data without permission from people who thought they owned those certain computer systems.

I'm not a lawyer but whether that's legal depends on who owns those Kindles, and whether Amazon has been given extra special powers to delete data from systems they don't own.

FWIW, Amazon says "buy" Kindle, they don't say "rent".

Car repossessors still have to follow certain steps to repossess a car - they typically cannot break into garages to repossess the car - it has to be in an open area, in some cases they have to notify the buyer that they are going to repossess the car.

Similarly when a Bank seizes back property there are certain procedures they have to follow.

Another thing - the initial problem was with Amazon's _Partner_ selling stuff they shouldn't have, not Amazon themselves.

Just because a shop in Amazon Mall sells me stuff they shouldn't have doesn't mean that Amazon can send their Mall Guards to sneak into my house and remove it on behalf of that shop, even if Amazon Mall is afraid they might get sued.

If the shop has done something illegal, Amazon Mall could report it to the police - the cops are the ones who have powers to seize and destroy stuff. Lets all only have to deal with one bunch of thugs running around ok?

This about law and order.

Re:

[Svartalf]

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 i

It's time for the Minute of Hate

[Drakkenmensch]

The irony that Orwell's 1984 describes "Children Heroes" who snitch on grown-ups is tasting sweeter with every passing moment.

Re:

[damien_kane]

The irony that Orwell's 1984 describes "Children Heroes" who snitch on grown-ups is tasting sweeter with every passing moment.

Except that our world is sliding closer and closer to a Brave New World than into 1984 (c'mon, it's 2009 already).
We as a people [in the western world] are taught to be complacent and kept in a "healthy" state of mind by being force-fed pleasure from a very early age.
There aren't the thought-police running around selectively re-educating people who go astray, no, instead we're sent to a shrink and spoonfed drugs until we're a normal, functioning member of society again. We're provided copious amounts of m

Re:It's time for the Minute of Hate

[morgan_greywolf]

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:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.

Re:It's time for the Minute of Hate

[astacom]

Neil Postman. Quoted in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World [wikipedia.org] and a ref to "Postman, Neil (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. USA: Penguin USA. ISBN 0-670-80454-1" is provided there.

Isn't an apology enough?

[neonprimetime]

per the /. story [slashdot.org] i read 4 days ago

Re:Isn't an apology enough?

[Chris Mattern]

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 is the bare minimum.

You get what you paid for

[pembo13]

And you paid for a device which was tethered to its master, which happened not to be you.

He has no case

[isa-kuruption]

The EULA is available here: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530 [amazon.com]

Specifically, it says:

Changes to Service. Amazon reserves the right to modify, suspend, or discontinue the Service at any time, and Amazon will not be liable to you should it exercise such right.

Amazon modified the service by removing the book.

End of discussion.

Re:He has no case

[Whorhay]

I believe that applies to the service of providing ebooks and such as well as the wireless connection. The content already on the device might be a hard sell to a judge as a service that may be modified.

Re:

[themacks]

The question here is whether they can legally reserve that right. Just because it is in the EULA doesn't make it legal. If they can reserve that right, then is this particular action covered by that? This is definitely still debatable.

Re:He has no case

[david_thornley]

Except that, reading the EULA, the book is independent of the Service. The buyer has a license to read the book on the Kindle OR in other ways as provided by the Service. Bear in mind that, in licenses and contracts like this, any ambiguities will be resolved in favor of the people who didn't write the license or contract. That's how free agency came about in Major League Baseball: the reserve clause was unclear, and the courts ruled that the interpretation that favored the players was preferred, since it was a standard MLB contract. (For the baseball-deprived, individual teams used to hold players' contracts, so that they could only play for one team. The "reserve clause" gave the team the option to renew a player's contract for a year, and the courts ruled that this allowed player to play out that year and then be free agents, free to negotiate with any team.)

Even if the language was clear, the courts could rule that it was part of a contract of adhesion, and therefore invalid. They could also rule that something that looks like a sale is an actual sale. Both sorts of rulings have happened in the past.

No, I'm not a lawyer either, but I do read Slashdot.

Homework

[necro81]

How many possible "ate my homework" jokes can we go for here:

"The Kindle ate my homework."

"Jeff Bezos ate my homework."

"If there is hope for my homework, it lies with the proles."

"We have triumphed over the unprincipled dissemination of 1984. The users and readers have been cast out. And the poisonous weeds of note-taking have been consigned to the dustbin of history. Let each and every student rejoice!...We are one Amazon. With one will. One resolve. One cause. Our enemies shall read themselves to death. And we will bury them with their own Kindle! We shall prevail!" [too obscure? [google.com]]

come on an chime in!

Did Amazon even try?

[DeadboltX]

It seems like a good alternative solution would have been to pool up all the refund money and make an offer to the real copyright owner for all the current ebook "owners" to keep their copy, and then not sell any new ones

Change of heart

[spagiola]

Sounds like Gawronski had a change of heart. On Sunday he was quoted in the New York Times [nytimes.com] saying:

"I'd like to live in a perfect world where I own this content and can do whatever I want with it," said Justin Gawronski, a high school student whose copy of "1984" was erased by Amazon, but who recently declined when a lawyer asked him to join a class-action lawsuit over the incident. Mr. Gawronski said, "This is probably going to happen again and we just have to learn to live with it."

(emphasis added)

Amazon accessing your device deleting your book?

[sam0737]

I would believe it's the Kindle accessing Amazon and deleting the book when something is flagged (or not flagged!)

And Amazon won't trespass your device. Never heard of any DRM setup that would do that.

At any case, I hope the student wins.

One word

[Norsefire]

If this was anything except 1984, this wouldn't have been news at all.

Bullshit.

Re:One word

[gEvil (beta)]

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:They didn't have the right to sell it...

[MattRC]

"If this was anything except 1984, this wouldn't have been news at all." I completely disagree. Let's not give up the right to keep the information we buy entirely - it's bad enough that future generations may not own an encyclopedia, dictionary, thesaurus, or, potentially, ANY books/information that cannot be instantly taken away by certain companies or even the government or hackers. Sure, if there was some absolute guarantee that this would only happen in cases where a retailer sold something they did not have the right to sell, few people would care much. It's still bad, in that case, but the real worry is that, to pull a crazy hypothetical out of my *ss, Bush got re-elected for a 3rd term in the last election, decided to invade iran, invoked some war powers act to silence the media from complaining about it, and later started quietly pulling books from the virtual shelves ... books that might start dangerous thoughts. As crazy as it may sound, it's hardly crazy at all. People who want to do this exist - these types have been in power in various countries ... these types are IN power in some countries (N. Korea, anyone? And they're not alone - the media in Iran isn't all that free, is it?) In my opinion, this ability needs to be removed from the hardware - through the law. Simply having people complain enough that companies don't do this won't solve anything, backdoors will still exist.

Re:They didn't have the right to sell it...

[bhagwad]

Completely agree - and you missed out China. Also, the RIAA's "educational campaign" sounds Orweillean too.

Re:They didn't have the right to sell it...

[Sandbags]

If you illegally sold an item, you can be required to pay punitive damages, and you can even go so far as to notify the buyers, but taking back the product (recalling it) is reserverd only for true "stolen goods" and even then only in rare cases, and usually not for retail products. Counterfeit products are often reclaimed, but not valid products sold simply without license or copywrite.

Amazon should have paid the fine (if one was even imposed by the holder). By themsleves (and not thrhrough the action of a courth or dualy authorized agency) taking back this product, they have violated multiple premises in the doctrine of first sale, the commerce codes of the United States and likely multiple state laws, and the punishment for doing so should be significantly greater than the punishment would have been simply for the infringement.

The customers though no fault of their owen purchaesed legally this unlicenced product. They did not buy it out of a truck or through some black market where a crime might be inferred, but through a well known and trusted retailer. Refund of money alone is insufficient in this case as once the product has been sold, the contract of sale is completed, and the product is now OWNED by the customer. Should Amazon want it back, the CUSTOMER becomes the seller, and has every right to set their OWN price for the return. As a student, that electronic copy might be FAR more valuable to me than a physical copy, and even if Amazon offered to replace the elctronic copy with one that WAS authorized for distribution, if it was not compatible with the Kindle, and supported the same notes file taken by the student, then it would not have been an equal value replacement, and asking the student, who was the legal woner of that product, to accept an inferior replacement, even for free after refund, may still not equate to the value of his loss (which can easily be measured in man hours repeating his effort in another form of the book, and correcting and correlating all the notes already takes, using a fair labor rate).

...so they needed to obtain it ex post facto

[Overzeetop]

If they didn't have the right to sell it, and it's illegal to reposess such a work through legal means, then they need to pay the copyright owner for the copies distributed. The lawyers can hammer out an agreement which will make Jeff & Co. look just a little harder the next time they go publishing a work. Of course, since Amazon knows how many they sold, that will make it easy for the copyright holder to sue for damages based on statutory infringement should the talks break down

Why is this so hard?

Re:

[s73v3r]

Amazon didn't have the right to distribute the book, however, I don't believe they had the right to delete something off my device that I've already paid for. If they paid damages to the rightsholders, then those should have been paid on condition that they wouldn't be able to remove the book from the devices.

Re:They didn't have the right to sell it...

[Attila Dimedici]

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.

Perhaps it would not have been news, but it should be. The problem with e-books is that they can be edited after the fact with no reliable way to know which version is the original. This makes practical the kind of altering of history talked about in "1984".

Re:

[tepples]

Amazon didn't know that it was still under copyright in the US

Surely the schema for books includes a date of first publication. In that case, here's a query to determine what books can be assumed to be still copyrighted:

SELECT asin, isbn, title, author
FROM books
WHERE YEAR(pubDate) >= 1923

This query will remain valid until at least December 2018 and, barring deep reform of U.S. congressional campaign finance, likely beyond that time.

Re:

[Vexorian]

It would still be news, a student is suing a big company for doing something of controversial ethical nature. That the book was 1984 just adds a certain touch of irony to it.

They didn't have the right to take it back either

[MaizeMan]

Nope. Distribution of copyrighted works without permission is illegal. Possession isn't.That's why in all the p2p trials they have to argue the distribution to others angle.

The publisher who released the book to amazon without permission should be liable for damages, but customers bought them in good faith.

Does anyone here think that if this had been a hard copy, Barnes and Noble would track you down from your credit card number, and send someone to knock on your front door demanding you return the book

Re:They didn't have the right to sell it...

[Stile 65]

Really?

FTFS: 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.'

It's a sad day when we don't even bother reading the SUMMARY any more.

Re:They didn't have the right to sell it...

[BronsCon]

After the JavaScript finishes, I barely have time for the headline!

Re:

[clone53421]

It wasn't deleted. It never existed. He must have imagined it.

Also, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

Re:Hrrm

[DoofusOfDeath]

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.

Re:Hrrm

[Hotawa Hawk-eye]

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.

No, that's the procedure for when they sell a paper copy of Fahrenheit 451 illegally.

Re:

[Jason Levine]

This would still be illegal. "But I was just retrieving someone that I accidentally sold to him when I didn't have the right to. I left his money on the dresser when I took the book." is not a valid defense for breaking and entering.

Re:

[Chyeld]

It's only theft if you accept the idea that selling the book to you was also theft (i.e. you accept the infringement of intellectual property rights = theft) and if you do, then you were, ispo facto, in possession of stolen property and have no claim over it.

If you don't accept that the orginal sale was theft, (i.e. you believe it was simply copy right infringement) then at most the deletion of the book could be would be a violation of the license agreement you made with Amazon. In this case, given that Ama

Re:Eh?

[moderatorrater]

Maybe he read and understood the book?

Mods fail HS English.

[Civil_Disobedient]

Idiot, illiterate mods. If he had read and understood the book he wouldn't have bothered with the lawsuit. Winston loved Big Brother at the end.

Re:

[blackraven14250]

Litigation happens to be the only way we get things done.

Re:Nope, just an opportunistic american.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a country, they're litigation happy. As a teenager, he's probably lazy and opportunistic. Put the two together ...

or maybe he is willing to stand up and fight for his rights, and the rights of others. There is a reason why Slashdot isn't in German. Godwin!

Re:

[Jarjarthejedi]

"In that case he would be campaigning to have the law changed to make such actions illegal"

Isn't that what he's doing?

"asks that Amazon be legally blocked from improperly accessing users' Kindles in the future"

Not all campaigns to change the law involve congress anymore.

Re:No case

[Imagix]

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.

Re:

[nacturation]

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.

Yes, but so far...

[phorm]

Amazon, and big corps in general, are NOT the police, and do not have the rights as such.

Re:

[AxeTheMax]

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.

Agreed they have no right to keep the goods, but they did enter into the sale contract in good faith assuming the goods were legitimate. If the seller had no right to sell them, the buyer has every right to compensation from the seller.

Re:No case

[CopaceticOpus]

Imagine someone purchased a car, and spent many hours customizing and tuning it. The seller then realized he shouldn't have sold the car, so he sneaks into the garage in the middle of the night, takes the car back, and leaves the added components and the cash for the original purchase price lying on the floor.

In this case, it is obvious that the seller acted improperly, and the buyer suffered a loss. The Amazon case involves data and copyrights rather than physical property, but the same principles should apply.

A case!

[jonaskoelker]

I don't think the guy has a legal leg to stand on. Amazon removed an illegal book, and the guy still has his annotations, useless or not.

While Amazon didn't destroy "tangible stuff"*, they did destroy the value of that stuff.

Say I throw a really loud party at my house, with you living next door; or I burn my garden waste, which is smoky and sooty; or I park in front of your driveway. I haven't destroyed your property, but I have reduced it's value. I have destroyed the value of your property without destroying the property itself.

I don't know whether any of the nuisance scenarios would give you a case, but if they do, why doesn't the same

NOT "stolen".

[Frosty Piss]

It sucks, but with digital technology, it is possible to recover stolen property, which is what Amazon did and should have done.

It was not "stolen" property. It was misappropriated according to copyright law. This is sort of like the issue of illegal downloads: IP owners like the **AA like to spout about "stolen" IP, but that's not what it is. Neither Amazon nore the customer broke into anything or anywhere and made off with anyone's IP. You may debate the validity of the copyright and if the content was misused by Amazon, but nothing was "stolen".

Re:

[prgrmr]

No, he seeking a specific court order to Amazon to prohibit them (and by precedent, anyone else) from doing it again. Making the suit a class action simply expands the plaintiffs to anyone who falls within the class and wants to participate. And the kid's attorneys have already said their profits (if any) will go to charity.

Re:

[MaerD]

And this is where I think we all went wrong.

Why should we allow books or music to be licensed to us? or anything for that matter?
And even if we do, why for perpetual licenses do we allow them to take away all our rights?
The doctrine of first sale was created to protect us from this behavior, but we've thrown it out the window as soon as we agree to this kind of license.
Any time we agree to a perpetual license we should have certain rights that can't be signed away, and the first two I would think

Re:

[cpghost]

It's still ultimately his own fault for relying on an electronic device, if it crashed and he lost his data he wouldn't have a right to sue then and he'd be in the same boat.

There's a big difference between electronic devices failing because nothing -- including technology -- is perfect, and intentionally and willfully destroying content, as Amazon did in this case.

Re:A fool and his money...

[Chelloveck]

We are dealing with a high school kid who owns a kindle and was using it for school. While it is possible that kid actually earned the $500 to buy it himself, I'm probably not alone in finding that unlikely.

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:

[AndrewNeo]

that can provide a proof of purchase.

These were all downloaded digitally. Not only that, they were already refunded their money for the purchase, why should Amazon give them more money back?

Re:

[Svartalf]

The deletion is analogous to the infringer being ordered to enter into the homes of the people to remove the infringed records or books, with or without a refund.

Seriously.

Copyright law is powerful- but not THAT powerful. No court of competent jurisdiction would ever order such an act. Even to the kindles. Even if they had the ability. Amazon didn't HAVE to do anything remotely resembling what they did.