Hacker News Reader

Comment by conorgil145 | Hacker News Reader

The fact that he is suing over his lost homework is almost totally irrelevant. It is just a brilliant way to hold Amazon responsible for their actions. Once a book is purchased he owns the rights to that material and he did not initiate or consent to the removal of the book.

If you read the PDF draft of the lawsuit it clearly says that Amazon does not tell users in the Terms & Agreements that they have the ability to remotely delete e-books and in fact says that "...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..."

Amazon should never be allowed to change data on an individual's kindle without their express written consent. Its criminal.

View on HN

The interesting thing about this lawsuit is that it is charging Amazon with various forms of trespass and breach of contract. One of the causes of action is for illegal hacking; one is for trespassing on the Kindle; one is for stealing the book; two are for breach of contract; and one is for deceptive trade practices.

The case has nothing really to do with copyright. It seems unlikely that Amazon can justify its actions on the grounds of protecting someone else's copyright. (If you sell illegal contraband to someone, you don't magically get a right to steal it back.)

If the case succeeds, it might have some interesting limiting effects on DRM systems.

So if this case succeeds, it might have

Once a book is purchased [the customer] owns the rights to that material [indefinitely]

According to most people's common sense, maybe, but certainly not according to US copyright law. Copyright law is very clear about under what what terms authors may license their work, and licensing it for indefinite time is not a requirement.

Edit: I'm just stating facts, not saying it's right. Personally, I see both sides. But if one argues that copyright law should be changed, I don't see why Amazon, a public corporation, should take away rights from publishers which have granted to them by the laws passed in a government supposedly representing the will of the people.

US laws on ownership are retarded. You know you live in a screwed up country when you can sell everything above the ground and below the air(gov't territory) to one buyer and everything below the ground to another.

Well, "owership" is very different from "licensed intellectual works". The similarity between "intellectual property" and "property" is purely semantic and without legal basis.

For physical books, you're wrong. See the first sale doctrine.

For digital goods, the precedents are mixed.

Despite the claims and agenda of copyright lobbies, US law has always had limits and exceptions on a rightsholders' ability to dictate all terms of their works' use and reproduction.

The resolution isn't fixed; it's up to us: what we tolerate, what we legislate, what we build.

Excellent point. Once they have sold me a copy of a work, I cannot then reproduce and distribute that work without permission (or waiting a very long time indeed for the copyright to expire), but there are a great many other rights that I have without any need for permission.

And that is under current law, the laws can be changed.

Amazon found out they never had the rights to sublicense that book.

So, instead of paying a fee to the publisher to settle the case they decided to reverse the deal end-to-end.

This should have been impossible.

Suing over just that has my vote, the homework issue doesn't enter in to it at all.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com