Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   We have always been at war with Amazon. Amazon sued for Kindle deletion of Orwell   (cbsnews.com) divider line 117
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

7770 clicks; posted to Main » on 01 Aug 2009 at 12:22 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



117 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-08-01 06:34:07 PM  
I am disappointed that none of you pseudointellectuals recognize the landmark significance of this case.

www.craig-thear.com

Let me paint it to you in terms you'll understand:

1. 3D Realms finally finishes Doom Nuke'Em Forever and releases it. Despite their best efforts, a shortfall of supply is expected.
2. You wait in line all night, buy yourself a copy for $40, and an extra copy to auction off.
3. Joe, some out-of-luck Duke fan (and not a plumber) bids $100 and buys your extra copy. $60 profit!
4. All is good, for months and months of remote-pipebombing holodukes and somesuch.
5. One day, months later, ID Software buys 3D Realms. They decide to deactivate everybody's copy and issue a refund. Even though they have no specific right to do so.
6. Everyone's copy goes dead, including yours.
7. You search desperately for hacks on the internet. But they're just not the same. Just some 3GL emulation, done badly with no antialiasing.
8. Meanwhile, at Joe's house: Joe is playing Duke Nuke'Em without pants on. He is in the middle of taking steroids so he can tip the strippers twice as fast. Suddenly his copy goes dead too.
9. Joe is not happy.
10. Joe IM's you and demands his $100 back, but you already spent the $60 profit on weed. And you just spent all your savings on laundry detergent. So you just :) and LOL.
11. Joe collects his secret society of internet tough guys. They break into your home and kill you.

Now do you see why this lawsuit is important?
 
2009-08-01 06:36:39 PM  
Cats_Lie: I am disappointed that none of you pseudointellectuals recognize the landmark significance of this case.

Let me paint it to you in terms you'll understand:

1. 3D Realms finally finishes Doom Nuke'Em Forever and releases it. Despite their best efforts, a shortfall of supply is expected.
2. You wait in line all night, buy yourself a copy for $40, and an extra copy to auction off.
3. Joe, some out-of-luck Duke fan (and not a plumber) bids $100 and buys your extra copy. $60 profit!
4. All is good, for months and months of remote-pipebombing holodukes and somesuch.
5. One day, months later, ID Software buys 3D Realms. They decide to deactivate everybody's copy and issue a refund. Even though they have no specific right to do so.
6. Everyone's copy goes dead, including yours.
7. You search desperately for hacks on the internet. But they're just not the same. Just some 3GL emulation, done badly with no antialiasing.
8. Meanwhile, at Joe's house: Joe is playing Duke Nuke'Em without pants on. He is in the middle of taking steroids so he can tip the strippers twice as fast. Suddenly his copy goes dead too.
9. Joe is not happy.
10. Joe IM's you and demands his $100 back, but you already spent the $60 profit on weed. And you just spent all your savings on laundry detergent. So you just :) and LOL.
11. Joe collects his secret society of internet tough guys. They break into your home and kill you.

Now do you see why this lawsuit is important?


I assume you'll be submitting that as an amicus brief?
 
2009-08-01 06:40:49 PM  
If Kindle users were black, no lawsuit. They'd have been charged with receiving stolen goods.

www.cityofmobile.org
 
2009-08-01 06:43:16 PM  
treesloth:
I assume you'll be submitting that as an amicus brief?


I think the lawyers are already on this track, if you RTA:

"Amazon.com had no more right to hack into people's Kindles than its customers have the right to hack into Amazon's bank account to recover a mistaken overpayment," Edelson said. "Technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so. That is 100 percent contrary to the laws of this country."
 
2009-08-01 07:46:54 PM  
evilRhino: I'm an excellent driver: You don't buy a book with a Kindle, you buy licensed access which is owned by Amazon.

From Amazon (obtained by clicking 'How to Buy':
"1-Click to order your Kindle Edition. Your purchase will be sent automatically and wirelessly to the Kindle via Amazon Whispernet. No cables, no computer. If you send your purchase to an iPhone or iPod touch, it will be available in your Kindle for iPhone application."

Not one mention of license.


From the ToS:

Use of Digital Content. 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. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.

The right to keep a permanent copy of digital content could have been violated by the 1984 thing.

The ToS also says that any dispute to come out of or relating to the Terms of Service will be settled in arbitration however. This means Amazon will move that this case be taken out of the court system and sent to confidential arbitration.
 
2009-08-01 09:00:49 PM  
just get an mp3 audio book of it and then you won't even have to read it.
 
2009-08-01 09:01:02 PM  
Cats_Lie: treesloth:
I assume you'll be submitting that as an amicus brief?

I think the lawyers are already on this track, if you RTA:

"Amazon.com had no more right to hack into people's Kindles than its customers have the right to hack into Amazon's bank account to recover a mistaken overpayment," Edelson said. "Technology companies increasingly feel that because they have the ability to access people's personal property, they have the right to do so. That is 100 percent contrary to the laws of this country."


No, I mean exactly what you posted, including Joe and the ITG squad breaking in to kill people. I just want to see a court give "LOL awesome would read again omg" as a response to a brief.
 
2009-08-01 09:07:28 PM  
Cats_Lie:
1. 3D Realms finally finishes Doom Nuke'Em Forever and releases it. Despite their best efforts, a shortfall of supply is expected.
2. You wait in line all night, buy yourself a copy for $40, and an extra copy to auction off.
3. Joe, some out-of-luck Duke fan (and not a plumber) bids $100 and buys your extra copy. $60 profit!
4. All is good, for months and months of remote-pipebombing holodukes and somesuch.
5. One day, months later, ID Software buys 3D Realms. They decide to deactivate everybody's copy and issue a refund. Even though they have no specific right to do so.
6. Everyone's copy goes dead, including yours.
7. You search desperately for hacks on the internet. But they're just not the same. Just some 3GL emulation, done badly with no antialiasing.
8. Meanwhile, at Joe's house: Joe is playing Duke Nuke'Em without pants on. He is in the middle of taking steroids so he can tip the strippers twice as fast. Suddenly his copy goes dead too.
9. Joe is not happy.
10. Joe IM's you and demands his $100 back, but you already spent the $60 profit on weed. And you just spent all your savings on laundry detergent. So you just :) and LOL.
11. Joe collects his secret society of internet tough guys. They break into your home and kill you.

Now do you see why this lawsuit is important?



There's something wrong with this argument but I can't quite.....wait I know 3D Realms stopped working on Duke Nukem Forever.
 
2009-08-01 09:47:02 PM  
 
2009-08-01 10:29:11 PM  
Mister Peejay: Ghola Kwisatz Haderach: A large multinational corporate lawyer took my assigned reading based on copyright infringement.


What is funny, is 1984 is one of the books available online in many places.

I wanted to read it again about seven years ago, and I found a copy on a site dedicated to political treatises. I can't find it now but it also had a bunch of books by Marx and such.

A quick Google find that the book is available free on a site called "george-orwell.org". Hmm.

"But dagnabbit I need to read it on my fancy e-book de-vice, not some silly 'puter!"


http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/cc-books.html
 
2009-08-01 11:00:12 PM  
Paschal: The real crux of the matter are copyright laws in the US. George Orwell is in the public domain in the rest of the world, but not in the US because Disney throws a lot of money at Congress to extend the copyright laws. It isn't right. According to the Constitution:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

It is not 'limited Times' if you keep tacking on 25 years every time the expiration date comes around.


Sure it is. 25 years is a limit.
And I'm in shape. Pear is a shape.

The problem is the legal status of companies as "authors," which comes from their other legal status: "persons." Yep, Joe Bftsplk and Engulf & Devour Inc. are equals under the law. It;s just as serious for Joe to fark over E&D as t'other way round.
 
2009-08-01 11:17:18 PM  
belowner:

You didn't read very much. Every single thing you just mentioned is flat out wrong. Every. Single. Thing.[...] If you're going to knock the device, don't farking lie about it. Jesus.

Well, if you have one, you must be right and I must have got ahold of bad info. Wiki seems to agree with you, anyway.

If all of what you say is true though, one wonders how the incident in TFA could have happened.
 
2009-08-02 12:08:32 AM  
I'm an excellent driver:
"If Amazon don't remove pirate software they get hammered, all they are doing is protecting the intellectual copyright."


That's Amazon's problem, not their customers'.

If Amazon screwed up and infringed on someone's copyright in selling a book, it is up to them to pony up and pay the appropriate royalties to the copyright holder. This should be COMPLETELY transparent to their customers, who are innocent of any wrongdoing and don't deserve to be inconvenienced by Amazon's mistake.


The movie/music/book industry is keen on soft vs. hard property analogies, telling us in commercials (on DVDs that we already paid for) that pirating a movie/song/book is just like stealing a car. So...

...Let's look at it like this: You go to the dealership and buy a new Chevy. Two weeks later, GM discovers that they underpaid their supplier for the batch of radios that went into the model you bought. If they had known, they would have priced the option differently. Now, imagine that instead of paying the difference to the supplier at their expense, GM breaks into your car in the middle of the night, rips out the radio so they can give it back to the manufacturer, and and leaves a refund check for the radio in your glove box.

Wait...that's not OK?
Come on, GM is just making sure the radio manufacturer doesn't lose money!
 
2009-08-02 12:25:30 AM  
ShannonKW: If all of what you say is true though, one wonders how the incident in TFA could have happened.

It happened because Amazon does have the capability. If the wireless is left on they can delete data off the content storage part of the device. They wrote the stripped down OS the device runs on. They can delete data because if you mark up a book and then sync it with your Amazon account, you can mark it as deleted on your device to save memory. Amazon then saves your book with bookmarks and notes on their servers until you want to download it again and removes the book from your content partition.

Again, for the paranoid person in you - that's all optional. You are not required to leave the wireless on longer than it takes to upload your book and notes. You're U.A.E., so it's no matter anyway - Amazon only offers it in the US. Sprint wouldn't let them offer the wireless elsewhere. I lived overseas for 10 years, but I'm not there anymore.

What they did is violate the trust they built in the first place. Just because they were capable doesn't mean they should have.

But it's not a bad device, absent this issue that most people who don't even own one don't have to care about. The wireless is farking real convenient if you read a lot away from home.

If you have ever finished a book in a series on a toilet and you'd like the next one - this device is for you. But only if you are American, living in the US, and don't buy used books. I'm the perfect market.

I copy all my media once a week onto the Macbook work gave me (didn't want it, but I respect it), my desktop at home, and an external drive I put media I want to keep.
 
2009-08-02 10:38:13 AM  
lenfromak: I can imagine "Don't panic" printed in large, friendly letters on the Kindle.

I can't tell. For some reason, my peril-sensitive sunglasses are too dark for me to get a good look.
 
2009-08-02 11:45:10 AM  
spmkk: I'm an excellent driver:
"If Amazon don't remove pirate software they get hammered, all they are doing is protecting the intellectual copyright."


That's Amazon's problem, not their customers'.

If Amazon screwed up and infringed on someone's copyright in selling a book, it is up to them to pony up and pay the appropriate royalties to the copyright holder. This should be COMPLETELY transparent to their customers, who are innocent of any wrongdoing and don't deserve to be inconvenienced by Amazon's mistake.



You don't get to steal something, and then pay for it when you get caught. The problem is, it is easy to recover the property in this case, and it IS in the EULA/TOS under illegal material.

The LEGAL publisher likely demanded removal, Amazon removed it and refunded the cost of purchase. I'm sorry for this kid, but in the US , the law treats digital content as real property via the DMCA, and receiving stolen property means you lose the property.
 
2009-08-03 12:27:37 AM  
From my understanding of the situation, don't the original copyright owners (Orwell's family?) not want these works in electronic format?

This being the case, Amazon was probably responding to their lawyers, and had to get the (nominally illegal) content off of the kindles before they were sued from that end.

/me head asplodes from the irony of 1984 and Animal Farm not being allowed to be distributed in electronic format...
 
Displayed 17 of 117 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report