You can be sure that if Amazon, or any other evil greedy corporation that hates our freedoms, tries to start controlling our access to books in a manner we don't appreciate, we will respond with technology that removes those corporations from the picture. Who says you can't get a book from a torrent?
Yar on
0
Options
BlackDragon480Bluster KerfuffleMaster of Windy ImportRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
Thought I'd bump this, as there is now a potential class action suit in the pipeline on this:
SEATTLE – A high school student is suing Amazon.com Inc. for deleting an e-book he purchased for the Kindle reader, saying his electronic notes were bollixed, too.
Amazon CEO Jeffrey P. Bezos has apologized to Kindle customers for remotely removing copies of the George Orwell novels "1984" and "Animal Farm" from their e-reader devices. The company did so after learning the electronic editions were pirated, and it gave buyers automatic refunds. But Amazon did it without prior notice.
The lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Seattle on behalf of Justin D. Gawronski, 17, a student at Eisenhower High School in Shelby Township, Mich., as well as Antoine J. Bruguier, an adult reader in Milpitas, Calif.
Patty Smith, an Amazon spokeswoman, said the Seattle-based company was aware of the filing but does not comment on pending litigation.
The case seeks unspecified damages for all buyers of e-books that Amazon deleted from the Kindle as well as a ban on future deletions.
The lawsuit said Amazon never disclosed to customers that it "possessed the technological ability or right to remotely delete digital content purchased through the Kindle Store."
Bruguier complained to Amazon repeatedly after losing his copy of "1984," appealing in vain for that or an authorized edition to be restored to his Kindle, according to the lawsuit. "I thought that once purchased, the books were mine," he wrote.
Gawronski told The Associated Press he was assigned "1984" for an advanced placement course in which students must turn in "reflections" on each 100 pages of text when they return from summer break, then take a test. He was a quarter to halfway through the book when it disappeared from his Kindle.
His notes on the book were "rendered useless because they no longer referenced the relevant parts of the book," according to the lawsuit.
Jay Edelson, a Chicago lawyer who filed the lawsuit, said in a news release that Amazon's actions could have far-reaching consequences if allowed to stand.
"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."
Bizzare tangental anecdote, the high school the kid goes to struck me. I actually know of that school, back in 2000 my high school's Scholar Bowl (i.e. team base Jeopardy-style competition for teenage dorks) went to Nationals and the team that won was from Eisenhower High.
Saddest part was, they were a 1-guy team, their team captain answered nearly 90% of their questions, guy was probably the biggest nerd arche/stereotype I've ever seen. I'm talking coke-bottle glasses, rainbow Mork and Mindy suspenders, high-waisted dress pants and always wore a tie. The only thing missing was a pocket-protector and he would have looked like Gilbert from Revenge of the Nerds.
BlackDragon480 on
No matter where you go...there you are. ~ Buckaroo Banzai
So if Amazon wins, EULAs would be shown in court to be toothless. While if they lose because their EULA states they won't delete content or whatever then this would be the first case where a EULA was seen as a valid contract?
agoaj on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited August 2009
I wonder if the kid's lawyer knows he is spewing bullshit?
Saddest part was, they were a 1-guy team, their team captain answered nearly 90% of their questions, guy was probably the biggest nerd arche/stereotype I've ever seen. I'm talking coke-bottle glasses, rainbow Mork and Mindy suspenders, high-waisted dress pants and always wore a tie. The only thing missing was a pocket-protector and he would have looked like Gilbert from Revenge of the Nerds.
Maybe it was intentional?
My high school chess club all dressed like a bunch of thugs and wore hats when we went to regionals or whatever tournament it was. We placed first overall or some such and got some trophy for it, all standing on stage wearing hats and leather jackets or hoodies with the hoods up instead of dress shirts and slacks. Our coach was not happy.
Bruguier complained to Amazon repeatedly after losing his copy of "1984," appealing in vain for that or an authorized edition to be restored to his Kindle, according to the lawsuit. "I thought that once purchased, the books were mine," he wrote.
He was given a refund for the deleted book. If he would have been happy with an authorized replacement, what, exactly, was stopping him from just buying the fucking thing?
His notes on the book were "rendered useless because they no longer referenced the relevant parts of the book," according to the lawsuit.
So his notes were still there, he just had to take five minutes to match them up to a different edition? Oh noes!
EDIT: ^ Yeah what a fucking baby. "Boohoo I thought when I bought something I owned it!" He should've read the fine print on his Kindle that said "Amazon.com withholds the right to delete anything you've purchased at any time for any reason".
EDIT: ^ Yeah what a fucking baby. "Boohoo I thought when I bought something I owned it!"
I know, right? What ever made him think something silly like that?
He should've read the fine print on his Kindle that said "Amazon.com withholds the right to delete anything you've purchased at any time for any reason".
Srsly. I mean, the fine print says "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."
EDIT: ^ Yeah what a fucking baby. "Boohoo I thought when I bought something I owned it!" He should've read the fine print on his Kindle that said "Amazon.com withholds the right to delete anything you've purchased at any time for any reason".
Ah, the ol' put something in quotes to make it look like it's official trick. Interestingly enough, Muffin, the Kindle terms of use don't say those words in any form whatsoever. Congratulations on making something up completely and then trying to pass it off as being true. In fact, the real terms of use say pretty much the exact opposite of your "quote".
Premier kakos on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
EDIT: ^ Yeah what a fucking baby. "Boohoo I thought when I bought something I owned it!"
I know, right? What ever made him think something silly like that?
He should've read the fine print on his Kindle that said "Amazon.com withholds the right to delete anything you've purchased at any time for any reason".
Srsly. I mean, the fine print says "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."
Amazon can't grant rights of viewing if the vendor doesn't have them.
Posts
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_on_en_ot/us_tec_amazon_kindle_lawsuit
Amazon CEO Jeffrey P. Bezos has apologized to Kindle customers for remotely removing copies of the George Orwell novels "1984" and "Animal Farm" from their e-reader devices. The company did so after learning the electronic editions were pirated, and it gave buyers automatic refunds. But Amazon did it without prior notice.
The lawsuit seeking class-action status was filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Seattle on behalf of Justin D. Gawronski, 17, a student at Eisenhower High School in Shelby Township, Mich., as well as Antoine J. Bruguier, an adult reader in Milpitas, Calif.
Patty Smith, an Amazon spokeswoman, said the Seattle-based company was aware of the filing but does not comment on pending litigation.
The case seeks unspecified damages for all buyers of e-books that Amazon deleted from the Kindle as well as a ban on future deletions.
The lawsuit said Amazon never disclosed to customers that it "possessed the technological ability or right to remotely delete digital content purchased through the Kindle Store."
Bruguier complained to Amazon repeatedly after losing his copy of "1984," appealing in vain for that or an authorized edition to be restored to his Kindle, according to the lawsuit. "I thought that once purchased, the books were mine," he wrote.
Gawronski told The Associated Press he was assigned "1984" for an advanced placement course in which students must turn in "reflections" on each 100 pages of text when they return from summer break, then take a test. He was a quarter to halfway through the book when it disappeared from his Kindle.
His notes on the book were "rendered useless because they no longer referenced the relevant parts of the book," according to the lawsuit.
Jay Edelson, a Chicago lawyer who filed the lawsuit, said in a news release that Amazon's actions could have far-reaching consequences if allowed to stand.
"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."
Bizzare tangental anecdote, the high school the kid goes to struck me. I actually know of that school, back in 2000 my high school's Scholar Bowl (i.e. team base Jeopardy-style competition for teenage dorks) went to Nationals and the team that won was from Eisenhower High.
Saddest part was, they were a 1-guy team, their team captain answered nearly 90% of their questions, guy was probably the biggest nerd arche/stereotype I've ever seen. I'm talking coke-bottle glasses, rainbow Mork and Mindy suspenders, high-waisted dress pants and always wore a tie. The only thing missing was a pocket-protector and he would have looked like Gilbert from Revenge of the Nerds.
~ Buckaroo Banzai
Maybe it was intentional?
My high school chess club all dressed like a bunch of thugs and wore hats when we went to regionals or whatever tournament it was. We placed first overall or some such and got some trophy for it, all standing on stage wearing hats and leather jackets or hoodies with the hoods up instead of dress shirts and slacks. Our coach was not happy.
PS4:MrZoompants
When a recall is done consumers have a choice whether or not to return the recalled item.
Amazon is removing choice.
He was given a refund for the deleted book. If he would have been happy with an authorized replacement, what, exactly, was stopping him from just buying the fucking thing?
So his notes were still there, he just had to take five minutes to match them up to a different edition? Oh noes!
Plus recalls happen because the product is unsafe.
I know, right? What ever made him think something silly like that?
Srsly. I mean, the fine print says "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."
Ah, the ol' put something in quotes to make it look like it's official trick. Interestingly enough, Muffin, the Kindle terms of use don't say those words in any form whatsoever. Congratulations on making something up completely and then trying to pass it off as being true. In fact, the real terms of use say pretty much the exact opposite of your "quote".
Also, Kakos, Muffin was using hyperbole.