Comment by mechanical_fish | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mechanical_fish | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

mechanical_fish

If you bought a car and it turned out it was stolen and the police took it without giving you anything in return, would you say "Ok..."?

In point of fact, you'd say nothing at all. You'd hire a lawyer to speak for you. Because you're at very serious risk of being charged with felonious possession of stolen property:

http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/possession-of-stolen-proper...

Note the last sentence:

A person who is innocently is possession of stolen goods will not be guilty of a crime, but generally, the goods will be returned to the owner.

So, from what I can tell, even if you are found to be completely innocent of any crime, when it turns out that your car is stolen property the police will still come and take it away very suddenly without asking your permission, and they won't give you anything in return. That's exactly how it works.

I presume you're then free to sue the shady used-car dealer who sold it to you. But if that dealer turns out to be bankrupt because he already spent all your money on crack, I believe you are out of luck.

This Amazon situation is so shocking not because it's without precedent, but because it never used to make financial sense to treat a stolen copyright just as you would treat a stolen car. (And, after the P.R. repercussions of this move are played out, it may not make any financial sense in the future, either. ;)

"This Amazon situation is so shocking not because it's without precedent, but because it never used to make financial sense to treat a stolen copyright just as you would treat a stolen car. (And, after the P.R. repercussions of this move are played out, it may not make any financial sense in the future, either. ;)"

Precisely. It's not a stolen car, it's a technicality of overly complex copyright law that resulted in a bunch of paying customers having something removed from a device that they thought was as safe as their bookshelf.

Scale is important here. If I purchased a ten dollar book from Barnes and Noble that was later determined to be part of a hijacking of a delivery truck, they wouldn't go through the trouble. Paper is cheep, books are stolen and you'll sell more.

On one hand you have the scale of distribution that is much greater than what could be attained by jacking a delivery truck. On the other hand you have a pile of customers that have just discovered that they don't actually have any guarantees that the things they purchased on their Kindle are going to continue to be there when they wake up in the morning.

I think when technology makes certain laws enforceable, it's missing the point to complain about the technology (as people have been doing).

In fact due to an odd lacuna in the law inherited from English common law, if someone in the business of selling cars (say, a used car dealer) sells one to you, that car cannot be repossessed (although the used car dealer is liable for the cash amount of the car). This is precisely to protect consumers, who can thus reasonably expect that if they buy an X from someone who deals in X, they are fine.

This does not, of course, apply to buying Xs from people not in the business of selling Xs. If your garbageman offers you a deal on a car, that car can be repossessed.

You assume (incorrectly) that my issue is with points of fact. My issue is with points of common sense and what should happen. It's not your fault you bought a stolen car or a stolen book. It's the sellers fault. It should be their responsibility to make it right. I don't care in the slightest how it actually is.

But once you've decided on what should be (let's call that B), wouldn't it make sense to figure out what is (let's call that A), and then figure out a way to get from A to B?

Off-topic: your comment made my night, it reminds me so much of my own reasoning once :)

The situation here is entirely within Amazon's control. All they have to do to get to B is do it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com