Ahahahaha. . . um, haha? :/

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The bigger question is... how friggin' stupid do you have to be to sell a pirated PDF via Amazon!?

That's like, I don't know, blackmailing someone and giving them your home address for the money delivery.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. This post is not meant to palliate or promote piracy (only when coupled with ninjas!) or blackmailing in any way.

I suppose one would really have to step out of your books for that.

 

[Mercutio01]

The article is very misleading.

The copies purchased were pirated copies. When Amazon found out, it reversed the transactions.

The consumers didn't own the books because Amazon didn't have the authority to sell them. It was an invalid transaction; and so the books were removed and the purchasers refunded.

But that's wrong in the legal sense. As I said above, courts have decided that the owners of property that was wrongfully sold were still entitled to keep that property because they were under the impression that the property was purchased legally. One specific case regarding books comes to mind. I don't remember all the details, but I was a file clerk for the FBI for a summer job in the late 90's. There was a book chain that had received books they thought were marked for remainder. The books were actually supposed to have been destroyed and were reported as such by a distributor. The distributor had some sort of mafia connection who was using the stolen books as a money-laundering operation.

They had had the legitimate perception that the property was being sold on the up-and-up. The FBI went after the distributor and the mob connection, but left the consumers alone. The courts decided that the consumers who had shopped at the bookstores that were selling those books were allowed to keep them.

Obviously it's case dependent, but that's perhaps a better way to proceed.

 

[Morrus]

But that's wrong in the legal sense. As I said above, courts have decided that the owners of property that was wrongfully sold were still entitled to keep that property because they were under the impression that the property was purchased legally.

I'm not sure what you mean. The case has not come to court. Nobody has even filed a suit.

However, that goes against most such laws, so I'd be surprised. If you buy something from a fence by mistake, you're outta luck when the cops come to fetch it back. The fence had no autority to transfer ownership from the original owner to you, and the ownership still resides in the original owner.

Copyright law may well differ from this, as we're talking copyright infringement, which is a different crime to theft.

I imagine Amazon has pretty good legal resources to research and advise the correct course of action; but in case they were wrong (I'm willing to bet they aren't!) we'll see how this plays out over the next few weeks.

 

[tenkar]

But that's wrong in the legal sense. As I said above, courts have decided that the owners of property that was wrongfully sold were still entitled to keep that property because they were under the impression that the property was purchased legally. One specific case regarding books comes to mind. I don't remember all the details, but I was a file clerk for the FBI for a summer job in the late 90's. There was a book chain that had received books they thought were marked for remainder. The books were actually supposed to have been destroyed and were reported as such by a distributor. The distributor had some sort of mafia connection who was using the stolen books as a money-laundering operation.

They had had the legitimate perception that the property was being sold on the up-and-up. The FBI went after the distributor and the mob connection, but left the consumers alone. The courts decided that the consumers who had shopped at the bookstores that were selling those books were allowed to keep them.

Obviously it's case dependent, but that's perhaps a better way to proceed.

The courts ruled such, I imagine, as an exercise in expediency and prudence. It was not practical to attempt to contact hundreds of customers in such a case. Many transactions were probably made in cash, with no records available to track down the purchasers.

It is EXTREMELY practical to delete electronic data and refund the purchase price when technology allows.

It is a crime to knowingly posses stolen property. In most states it is a crime to posses property that any reasonable person would suspect is stolen (the old "selling vcrs/ cell phones/ computers out of a car trunk" trick)

Amazon should have notified the customers effected prior to taking action to delete the file as a courtesy.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it, and ignorance of the possession of stolen property is does not grant the right to keep it.

 

[Mercutio01]

If you buy something from a fence by mistake, you're outta luck when the cops come to fetch it back. The fence had no autority to transfer ownership from the original owner to you, and the ownership still resides in the original owner.

If you buy something from a fence, you don't have a reasonable right to think the product is being legally sold. If you are purchasing something from a reputable retailer, it's a different story.

I imagine Amazon has pretty good legal resources to research and advise the correct course of action; but in case they were wrong (I'm willing to bet they aren't!) we'll see how this plays out over the next few weeks.

I'm not saying they were legally wrong to do what they did. I'm saying that based on precedent it may not have been the wisest choice, especially considering the huge negative press Amazon has taken in the last six months (the bug with "adult" literature and Twitter's #Amazonfail) and the idea of an Orwellian literature deletion (which was unfortunately coupled with texts by Orwell).

It is EXTREMELY practical to delete electronic data and refund the purchase price when technology allows.

This is true, but also unsettling. It's practical to do it and probably right in some cases, but the line between proper and improper is very fine. Politics and entities like wikipedia comes to mind as huge problems within the electronic data and deletion realm.

It is a crime to knowingly posses stolen property. In most states it is a crime to posses property that any reasonable person would suspect is stolen (the old "selling vcrs/ cell phones/ computers out of a car trunk" trick)

Amazon should have notified the customers effected prior to taking action to delete the file as a courtesy.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it, and ignorance of the possession of stolen property is does not grant the right to keep it.

You will note, of course, that I did say that the purchasers of the books were not knowingly in the possession of stolen property. The books were being sold through, I think, Books-a-Million and Atlantic Books, both (smaller) chain stores, and were in the remainder aisles with the black marks across the page ends.

And I'm willing to bet that if Amazon had taken that one little step of informing the customers this would never have become an international news item.

 

[Deset Gled]

If you buy something from a fence by mistake, you're outta luck when the cops come to fetch it back.

The other dissimilarities not withstanding, one of the big things that bothers me (and hurts the credibility of ebooks in the long run) is that "the cops" are not the ones that took the copies back. When the police confiscate something (at least in the US), there is a pretty well defined process that must legally be followed. There are also multiple, well defined channels to challenge the confiscation, and ways to claim back the property. To have a private company come in and confiscate what they already sold you is a completely different thing altogether.

Amazon better have an amazing EULA to allow them to do this. Even then, I imagine there are a number of lawyers simply salivating over the prospects of taking on a class action lawsuit.

 

[Plane Sailing]

However, that goes against most such laws, so I'd be surprised. If you buy something from a fence by mistake, you're outta luck when the cops come to fetch it back. The fence had no autority to transfer ownership from the original owner to you, and the ownership still resides in the original owner.

If you buy something from a fence, you don't have a reasonable right to think the product is being legally sold. If you are purchasing something from a reputable retailer, it's a different story.

This nearly happened to me quite by accident some years ago. Police came round to inspect my car, on the suspicion that it might be a stolen car. Even though I'd bought in good faith from someone who had owned it for four years and had bought in good faith before that, if they could ID as the stolen car my financial position would have been 'tough cookies, it isn't yours' and it would have just been take off me.

As it turned out, the police couldn't ID it as the suspected car, and nothing further happened (for which I was greatly relieved).

So in the UK at least, you can make an honest transaction with an honest seller, but if the goods turned out to be suspect you don't appear to have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

Cheers

 

[Mercutio01]

So in the UK at least, you can make an honest transaction with an honest seller, but if the goods turned out to be suspect you don't appear to have a leg to stand on, so to speak.

I don't know UK laws or history, but it strikes me that the US would have done the same thing. Your friend, honest or not, is not "Licensed Honda Dealer" or "Best Buy" which is a whole different matter.

 

[Morrus]

I'm not saying they were legally wrong to do what they did. I'm saying that based on precedent it may not have been the wisest choice, especially considering the huge negative press Amazon has taken in the last six months (the bug with "adult" literature and Twitter's #Amazonfail) and the idea of an Orwellian literature deletion (which was unfortunately coupled with texts by Orwell).

Well, there's not much point second-gessing them on what the "wisest" choice may have been. Certainly they felt they made a wise choice. For all we know, it could have been to avoid an impending lawsuit - I'm sure the copyright holder had something to say about it!

There's good press, and there's good legal practice. I'd rather a company obeyed the law rather than breaking it because doing so was "good press".

 

[Mercutio01]

Certainly they felt they made a wise choice.

I don't think that's the case at all. If it were, why the instantaneous back-pedaling and promising that they'll never do that again?

There's good press, and there's good legal practice. I'd rather a company obeyed the law rather than breaking it because doing so was "good press".

I agree with this. I also think the two were not mutually exclusive here. In fact, I'm pretty sure I said above that the best way to proceed would have been to notify those users who had those books first, then telling those users what was going to happen, and then doing it.

Say an email - "Attention Kindle customer: It has come to our attention that a copy of [1984] that we sold in Kindle format was illegally uploaded and has not been authorized by the copyright holder. As such, we will be removing your copy of the book and refunding you the cost of the book. Thank you for your understanding. Sincerely, Amazon." And I think that would have a) solved the problem, b) hit all the legal requirements in good practice, and c) avoided negative international news attention.

But ultimately that's all speculation. We know what happened and what Amazon promises won't happen again, and that's really about it, I guess.

EDIT - Just a quick update. Jeff Bezos made an apology HERE

Jeffrey P. Bezos says:
This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our "solution" to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we've received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.

With deep apology to our customers,

Jeff Bezos
Founder & CEO
Amazon.com