Which is free. And legal. If I didn't mention that before. And which gives you books in a format that cannot be deleted.

Yay for my sony e-reader.

If I were Maurice I'd have made that mistake because I would have been thinking about having to cram a bunch of journal entries in 'right' before school started.

Spouse has a kindle but I won't use it. But I do think he has a very good lawsuit for determining future precedents. What if you check your computer someday to find songs missing due to a band being sued for plagiarism? Or your Microsoft o/s de-installed due to a patent infringement lawsuit? Well, that last one might not be too bad...

MY BAD GUYS, MY BAD.

The surprising part in this case is that in its licenses Amazon does not appear to have reserved the right to repossess a sold work. They speak as to the permanent right of the user to use the work... I'm not convinced Amazon acted lawfully here.

@WorldHarmony: If a school district official did the theiving, then yes, he could sue the district. However, it's not about theft, it's about owning what you bought and being treated like a responsible, thinking human being when the item purchased turns out to be something that shouldn't be in existance at all. If I bought the licence to a piece of software and it turns out that the install download was produced by an unauthorized agent, that doesn't give the original software company the right to remotely hack into my personal property and remove the offending installed software; even if they give me back the purchase price. I may not "own" the software (just a licence to use it) but I bought that licence fair and square and there is only one way for them to be allowed to retrieve any offending copies/downloads of it -- with a court order. Anything short of that, without any type of notification (which should have been given and requests for removal proffered to affected people), is wrong.

@supercereal: Because the notes weren't part of the purchased text. They were his own words based on a text that was offered for sale at the time legally. I don't have a problem with them deleting the download and offering the purchase price back, but like many, the way this whole event was handled by Amazon was akin to a mugging. No warning (to remove notes or try to find alternate text that would coenside with the originally purchased text); just wham!bam! and not even a thank-you man/ma'am! when it was done. Just a lot of bewildered customers out there. And the fact that Amazon couldn't have gotten all the texts out of circulation 100% is what really makes it all the worse.

@fantomesq:
Really? My understanding was that it was essentially the same as receipt of stolen property. Let's have Person A and Person B. Person A steals something. Person A sells the stolen good to Person B. Person A gets caught, gets arrested, and confesses to the whole thing. Person B then has a warrant served against him to recover the stolen property ( however, he won't go to jail if the stolen good was received in good faith ). I thought the same applied to intellectual property. Can someone who is a lawyer enlighten here if it is illegal to receive or buy stolen intellectual property ( and if so, what can be done about it )?

But, even if receipt of stolen intellectual property is done differently from regular property, my other point still stands. Amazon probably has a cancellation / termination / revocation / suspenstion / etc. clause in either the TOS, the EULA, or both for cases in which stuff like this happens. It probably also comes with a limited license agreement ( i.e. you don't own the book; you have bought a limited, revokable license to access a digital copy of a given book ).

Is it right: I don't think so. Would I like to see it changed: yes. I'm just pointing out that Amazon is probably legally in the right. But, since their action resulted in something like the OP's situation, this lawsuit might have a chance. We'll just have to see.

"Sorry, teacher, but my Kindle ate my homework!"

Books that were printed in violation of the author's/publisher's copyright are NOT stolen goods. They are infringing goods. The courts may well order the destruction of every remaining copy in the infringing publisher's inventory. They are NOT going to require or even allow the seizure of books already sold. Infringing works are not per se stolen and do not fall under stolen goods.

The recipient of illegally sold property is never entitled to keep the property. It gets returned to the owner (in this case the copyright holder).

So, Amazon can take back any downloaded book it wants for any reason any time under their contract. Amazon is also required, under US law, to remove illegally copyrighted materials from their inventory.

Would you be siding with Amazon if they DIDN'T remove these illegal books and faced a lawsuit from the lawful copyright holder? Amazon is guaranteed to lose that fight, since the ownership of the property is not in doubt.

Citations to the numerous legal cases that have stricken down the DRM portions of the EULAs and TOS's?

Otherwise, "illegal and mostly unenforceable" is an unsubstantiated opinion and not relevant.

As it stands today, Amazon had no choice but to remove the items that they illegally sold. Being the recipient of an illegally sold item NEVER entitles you to keep the property -- it gets returned to the owner.

You can sue the seller over losses, but since Amazon refunded 100% of the actual cost, what cost is this kid assigning to his notes?

[www.copyright.gov]

The tactile sensation of turning the pages keeps me tuned into the book. And it's easier for me to meet my goal.

@terinjokes:

I'm going to go ahead and doubt that he came up with the idea all by himself and sought out the lawyer all by himself.

@Nascar24Dude:
edit: split, not plit
And, furthermore, the TOS and EULA are binding contracts. Unless a specific law overrides it, Amazon was within their power.

Do I hate seeing stuff like this? Absolutely. I think copyrights laws should last for 50 years or life of author plus 10, whichever is longer. However, I do partially support Amazon in protecting the rights of the copyright holder's property.

Well, I'm kindof plit on this one.

Several of you keep saying that Amazon "stole" these ebooks. Really, as I understand it, none of us really truly "own" a book ( copyrighted, that is; we do own public domain titles ). If we really owned it, we would be free to copy, publish, distribute, and sell it. But, we don't. Those rights belong to the author. We have a "license" to buy, possess, and read the book; and we can sell the one physical copy we have. We have a quasi-ownership of the book. The real property rights belong to the author. If an illegal copy gets sold, it can be seized by law enforcement ( albeit with a search warrant ) under the receipt of stolen property laws. Same for these ebooks. And, most likely, Amazon has something in their TOS or EULA that says you don't offically own the property; Amazon does. And, it has the right suspend/revoke/cancel/etc. the license to any and all books at any time. Plus, many of you are forgetting that, since these copies weren't authorized, it is really receipt of stolen property ( in this case, intellectual property ). Did Amazon not handle it as best as they could have: maybe. I'd like to see them double-check their selling rights and send a notification first if this happens again. But, I can't totally blame them.

Listen, I don't disagree that Amazon should have been nice about giving warnings. The point is, when you "buy" something via Kindle, you are agreeing that Amazon still owns the content (and that you are merely leasing it), a la:

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

E-books are non-essential; if you don't like their DRM policy, then don't purchase their products and complain about them later.

And as in most cases, the car analogy is completely different and irrelevant.

Companies have successfully sued for non-material breach of contract. Trespassing is a crime without harm.

The point is, how far is this going to go? Users should have been notified IN ADVANCE about the situation. If my car is recalled, Chrysler doesn't just sneak into my garage and take my car. They send you a notice.

I actually like having a physical book too. There's something about seeing your progress in the book. I may try a Kindle but I still think I would miss the tactile sensations of an honest to goodness book.

@RecordStoreToughGuy: Yeah, that's a really big part of why I can't get behind something like the Kindle. I know it's hypothetically more convenient, but I just love having an actual book.

From a punitive standpoint, this kid's claim seems a bit ridiculous to me. Amazon didn't prevent him from doing his work, they just made it slightly more difficult. He got a refund, so it's not like it was impossible for him to get another copy of the book - which in any case is readily available in most libraries. Summer break isn't over most students yet, so it also sounds like he had ample time to do the work.

I totally support this as a preventative measure for future theft on Amazon's part. But if this guy actually seriously believes that this posed a real obstacle to his completing his homework, he might not be responsible enough for an AP class. My guess, though, is that this is a clever way to make a more convincing case against Amazon for the general transgression of deleting the books.

I couldn't always get the annotated version; the bookstore always ran out and it took WEEKS to get more. By the time they got them in, you were already halfway through the semester. So it was easier just to go to the used bookstore. That always used to make me so mad!

The key words here are "law enforcement". There was no warrant, no notice, no nothing. Amazon had no right to go in and effectively *steal* his property. They should have gone through proper legal channels first.

The problem with that though, is that the notes reference the Locations of the book, which is no longer on the device.

There are, however, other copies of 1984 in the Kindle Store which should be formatted and typeset similarly to his copy, meaning he should be able to get close with lining his notes up.

But seriously, I have a Kindle 2, and I would not use it for serious heavy notating- The keyboard and screen are not up to par for any real typing

The key words here are "law enforcement". There was no warrant, no notice, no nothing. They effectively *stole* his property.

An analogy here would have been if you rented a car, took it to a place remote and then the rental company dispatched a tow truck and towed it away because they didn't own the title to the car. See how you would feel about an immediate refund when you are stranded in the middle of nowhere.

That cracked me up. Thank you.

If Amazon wants to get a judge to sign-off on a "search and seize" warrant for "illegally distributed digital media", then fine. But they didn't do that, they took the action without the benefit of legal cover or oversight. I'm constantly amazed at how easily some people surrender their rights.

If I sold you something which turned out later to be unauthorized, I cannot walk into your house and take it from you without your consent.

because they were illegally printed

Plus, he got an immediate refund. What's the problem here?

@coren: Which means it will probably get turned into a class action suit.

@MauriceCallidice: I'm not a spelling nerd...but I do find your use of "right" both funny and ironic.

See, some of us like to write in shorthand and make tight page references.

If you get the same book published by a different company, you'd be hard pressed to find a version with the same formatting and page numbering. Once you're about 100 pages in, you're kinda hosed at that point.

OTOH, the kind of teacher who assigns summer homework might not be the most empathetic one in the school. I've taught AP myself, but I could never bring myself to infringe on summer break, no matter how much material I needed to cram in.

@linkura: Blame the OP! BINGO!

@nybiker: s/b ..how MANY pages are ....

Will the lawsuit have a leg to stand on considering that all payments for the book have been returned by amazon? Especially since the lawsuit is towards amazon rather than the company that illegally sold the book... that is unless i read wrong...

Did each page of the book need a 'reflection' or was there supposed to be a 'reflection' for every 100 pages? If it's the latter, how pages are in the book that it wouldn't be possible to rewrite his reflections. OTOH, if it's for every page, well, at least he has a better excuse than the dog ate his homework. But, then again, I would suggest he buy a paper copy of the book and get cracking on starting again with the per page reflections.

BTW, my comment in no way should be taken to mean that I think his suit shouldn't continue. I just think that since the work is for an AP class, he still needs to get the work done. My guess is that whatever college he's applying to will want to see all the work.

DRM and closed systems are bad for consumers.