The fact that he is suing over his lost homework is almost totally irrelevant. It is just a brilliant way to hold Amazon responsible for their actions. Once a book is purchased he owns the rights to that material and he did not initiate or consent to the removal of the book.
If you read the PDF draft of the lawsuit it clearly says that Amazon does not tell users in the Terms & Agreements that they have the ability to remotely delete e-books and in fact says that "...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..."
Amazon should never be allowed to change data on an individual's kindle without their express written consent. Its criminal.
The interesting thing about this lawsuit is that it is charging Amazon with various forms of trespass and breach of contract. One of the causes of action is for illegal hacking; one is for trespassing on the Kindle; one is for stealing the book; two are for breach of contract; and one is for deceptive trade practices.
The case has nothing really to do with copyright. It seems unlikely that Amazon can justify its actions on the grounds of protecting someone else's copyright. (If you sell illegal contraband to someone, you don't magically get a right to steal it back.)
If the case succeeds, it might have some interesting limiting effects on DRM systems.
Once a book is purchased [the customer] owns the rights to that material [indefinitely]
According to most people's common sense, maybe, but certainly not according to US copyright law. Copyright law is very clear about under what what terms authors may license their work, and licensing it for indefinite time is not a requirement.
Edit: I'm just stating facts, not saying it's right. Personally, I see both sides. But if one argues that copyright law should be changed, I don't see why Amazon, a public corporation, should take away rights from publishers which have granted to them by the laws passed in a government supposedly representing the will of the people.
For physical books, you're wrong. See the first sale doctrine.
For digital goods, the precedents are mixed.
Despite the claims and agenda of copyright lobbies, US law has always had limits and exceptions on a rightsholders' ability to dictate all terms of their works' use and reproduction.
The resolution isn't fixed; it's up to us: what we tolerate, what we legislate, what we build.
Excellent point. Once they have sold me a copy of a work, I cannot then reproduce and distribute that work without permission (or waiting a very long time indeed for the copyright to expire), but there are a great many other rights that I have without any need for permission.
And that is under current law, the laws can be changed.
US laws on ownership are retarded. You know you live in a screwed up country when you can sell everything above the ground and below the air(gov't territory) to one buyer and everything below the ground to another.
Well, "owership" is very different from "licensed intellectual works". The similarity between "intellectual property" and "property" is purely semantic and without legal basis.
According to the Wall Street Journal article (http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my...) about the suit, he did not lose the notes; he is upset because the notes are no longer linked (or whatever) to the text they refer to. >>Amazon didn’t delete the file containing Gawronski’s notes on the Kindle device. But since the book text "no longer exists, all my notes refer back to nothing," he said. "I can’t really use it for much."<<
Also, they are supposedly suing to prevent Amazon from doing this again, which Amazon has already said they will not. This is just a sleazeball lawyer going for his own benefit and a teenager trying to stretchout his 15 minutes of fame.
Proof that children should not be able to bring suit until they are of age. Losing your homework is not reason for a lawsuit, if you get a device like the kindle you should learn how to make backups. And if your chosen device for your homework can not make backups you only have yourself to blame, you should use something else.
Personal responsibility seems to be in short supply, blame somebody else is so much easier. Electronics can fail, the kindle is no exception. If you made your homework on a piece of paper I'm sure it would not be lost so easily, but then again pieces of paper can blow away, burn, get lost and so on. The kindle - and any other piece of complex tech - is not infallible. At that price point it can't be expected to be infallible. The fact that amazon initiated the failure is a systemic issue with the kindle, nothing to be surprised about. If you choose a medium with all kinds of weird DRM then you can't really blame the vendor.
Is it frivolous lawsuit week or did I miss the memo ? First that real estate company over a tweet and now this.
Personally I think amazon deserves a boycott for the kindles DRM but you can't really sue them over a 'feature' that has been well advertised. The kindle is broken by design.
This is like saying that someone who takes notes on paper, then subsequently loses those notes when the paper manufacturer steals the paper back, is to blame for losing the notes because they didn't take a photo copy. It's a total cop-out.
This is like saying that [...] the paper manufacturer steals the paper back
No, it's really nothing like that. Semantics aside, intellectual property is not like physical property: it's not subject to the laws physical property is subject to, nor to the right of physical property.
You're absolutely right. A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning.
Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them.
I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside". Are you intentionally saying something that is equivalent to "Ignoring the meaning of 'intellectual property' and 'physical property', intellectual property is not like physical property?" I assume not, but I'm not sure what you meant to say there.
A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning.
Agreed, this is a much better comparison! :)
I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside"
By "semantics", I was referring to the word "property". I mean that if I sell you a loaf of bread, it's a transaction governed by a nearly disjoint set of laws than if I sell you a poem or program that I wrote.
For example, I can't sell you a loaf of bread and force you to eat it on a Monday, but I can sell you a DRM-ed program that only runs on Mondays (enforced by people with heavy sticks and shiny guns ;)).
If our goal is creating a productivity-maximizing society, I think enforcing some restrictions of copyright are a good idea, as long as they "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [1], but current copyright law seems as if it might over-reach that. What I would love to see is a real debate about where the line should be drawn.
"Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them."
The annotations were not destroyed. The work they referenced was removed. The claim is that, absent that work (with its particular page numbers , etc. I'm guessing) those notes are essentially useless, since they now refer to a void.
Are you sure the annotations weren't removed as well? Not having a Kindle, I don't know, but some of the articles covering the matter have said that they were.
'Amazon didn’t delete the file containing Gawronski’s notes on the Kindle device. But since the book text “no longer exists, all my notes refer back to nothing,” he said. “I can’t really use it for much.”'
DRM and physical properties are not applicable to the same objects. DRM refers to data+software to unlock that data.
A physical device could be the carrier of a DRM'd piece of data but it has nothing to do with the carrier itself.
Data is just streams of bits no matter what carrier they're on. That data could be encumbered with DRM or it could be 'plain'.
You never 'own' a piece of DRM'd data, these are almost exclusively limited use sublicenses. It's not like buying a book or a record (the vinyl kind). It's more like buying a movie ticket.
Paper has one expected set of behaviours, and paper manufacturers stealing back the paper is not entering into the equation. Paper is subject to other kinds of 'dataloss', such as but certainly not limited to fading, burning, tearing and so on. So if notes on paper are very important to you you keep them in a safe place and you make sure you do have that copy in case it gets lost.
The kindle is not a piece of paper. It's a digital device that has some absolutely draconian measures built in to its software. You lease the books until amazon decides to yank them back. Maybe you'll get your money back. They can reverse the deal any time they see fit. Your 'bookshelf' on their servers loses books magically after you've reloaded them a couple of times.
It's an absolute piece of shit from a rights perspective, and I really think they ought to be sued in to the ground and boycotted over this.
If you use the kindle to annotate a book and that book gets yanked back to amazon - for whatever reason - you lose your notes. This is purposefully built in to the device and it is a direct consequence of the way amazon manages its publishers rights.
I think that on e-books the right of first sale doctrine should apply just as it should on 'paper books'. But if you annotate a digital book on a digital device that has these 'features' and you have been advised about them in amazons terms of service, quoted:
"Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content"
In other words you never 'bought' an e-book you licensed a limited right to use.
and then:
"The Device Software will provide Amazon with data about your Device and its interaction with the Service (such as available memory, up-time, log files and signal strength) and information related to the content on your Device and your use of it (such as automatic bookmarking of the last page read and content deletions from the Device). Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are backed up through the Service. Information we receive is subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice."
Amazon claims they make a backup for you.
So, in short, contact their customer service and ask for a copy of your notes, that's in their terms of service.
And never ever buy an amazon product again.
And never subscribe to a service without reading the terms of use.
You know, that kind of attitude really really irritates me. It's a "don't trust anyone/anything" type of mentality that leads to a lot of unnecessary paranoia. We live in a society of trust. I buy a DVD, trusting the company has given me a disc with the movie I want, viewable for years and years, but if it suddenly executes some sort of self-destruct code, I am at fault for not making copies?
You might say it's wrong on the consumer's behalf in putting that much trust in a company, but that's the society we've come to live in, and, not including the small percentage of issues like these that occur, I think it's safe to say the trust we give has spared us a lot of worry.
So, you're saying that you do not backup your work ?
Making backups is one of the first things you learn about when you start using digital media. When you're 17 and you think you are old and wise enough to bring suit to a large corporation you are also old and wise enough to copy your important data.
It's funny how I get modded into the ground for an obvious observation like that, if something is important to you you make sure that you have a copy in case the original gets lost.
* I do not think amazon should have this right *
But the kindle has this facility and you can vote against it by not buying one.
Amazon has lost every bit of respect they ever earned from me because of what the kindle can do, it's a total travesty of everything an e-book should stand for, what's bought stays bought. An e-book should strive to be a BETTER book, not a worse one. Their DRM and books-on-an-elastic band should get them vilified in every medium. Personally I will never order another book from them - and believe me I've been a good customer of theirs.
But losing your homework because you haven't made a copy of your notes is not a ground for a lawsuit. We call that a learning experience. I'm sure everybody on this forum has lost some digital medium or other in the past and learned the hard way that backing up your data is a must.
I dont really understand your point, just because someone can fall over and break their nose doesnt mean I should not get in trouble for punching them in the face.
They arent being sued because the device randomly malfunctioned, its because they intentionally deleted users data, remotely.
While you call that a well advertised feature, I missed it on any of the promotional material or adverts.
> Losing your homework is not reason for a lawsuit,
Why the hell not? Work is work, no matter your age, and clearly homework has value (artificial, but I digress) given the importance teachers have tied to it.
what if one of his class mate had thrown away his homework notebook. Would he be still be able to sue the other kid? Courts aren't setup to deal with this kind of issues.
>what if one of his class mate had thrown away his homework notebook. Would he be still be able to sue the other kid? Courts aren't setup to deal with this kind of issues.
He actually would still be able to sue the other kid. However, his damages would likely be rather small, and thus he would go to small claims court, which is setup to deal with this kind of issue. Probably he could also make a criminal complaint against the other kid if he really wanted.
Able, yes. Wise, no.
The wisdom of the action may be changed by the way that it's a large and respected market-leading company potentially throwing away lots of kids homework.
I don't think that this is an issue of not backing up. The student bought what he supposed to be a legit copy of a book, than amazon remotely deleted it, along with his notes. There should be a mechanism to backup notes, separate from the book associated with them, but i don't believe there is one. Correct me if I'm wrong.
For me, the issue is that Amazon purposefully deleted his notes. They certainly must have known that this would be a side effect of removing a title from a Kindle.
Whether there is or is not is not really the problem here, if there is he should have used it, if there isn't he shouldn't be using the kindle for any note taking of stuff that he thinks is important enough to sue over.
The kindles DRM is not exactly news, personally I would never ever buy a device that allows some company far away decide whether or not I can read something that I already have, no matter how I got it. It's absolutely horrible. But the fault in this case lies clearly with the student, not with amazon.
I feel the same way, but this is a tip-of-the-iceberg issue. what happens if you're working the cloud and MegaCorp zaps your thesis/subscriber database/whatever? Yeah, one should back up but part of the idea of cloud computing is you pay for availability and security. It may be a frivolous lawsuit, but it's probably going to be an important test case unless Amazon settles.
What I'm really wondering about is if there is no proof that the notes ever existed and amazon has no record of their being backed up how will he be able to claim damage ?
You would at a minimum have to have some proof the notes existed in the first place.
When I sign up with a hosting company there is a very explicit provision that they are not liable for information loss, and rightly so. After all they can't possibly figure out the value I assign to my data. It may be random garbage or very important stuff, it's up to me to assign priorities and to back up the stuff that I think is important to me.
I assume the same applies to the cloud, hosting your data in the cloud is not a backup strategy.
True on the backup front, but I must admit that I probably wouldn't have thought about that.
As to the DRM on Kindle, it has bee known, but I don't think their ability and willingness to delete a "legitimately" purchased book remotely has been until this incident. Isn't this the first time that a book has been deleted over the air?
It was. Of course then nobody thought it was important enough to raise a racket over. Apple does the same thing with their 'kill switch' on the applications in the app store.
These are the most public examples of how we are changing from 'sale' to 'lease' of everything with which that is technically possible.
Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs should take a public stand against this instead of being handmaidens to the new world order. They ought to be very much ashamed of themselves.
If you read the PDF draft of the lawsuit it clearly says that Amazon does not tell users in the Terms & Agreements that they have the ability to remotely delete e-books and in fact says that "...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..."
Amazon should never be allowed to change data on an individual's kindle without their express written consent. Its criminal.