What does ownership means in the digital era?

[nerdgirl 0]

Earlier this week, Amazon.com remotely deleted copies of George Orwell’s _1984_ and _Animal Farm_ – delicious irony, eh? – from the Kindle electronic readers of folks who had downloaded the electronic version of the texts. Fox News article on the incident.

Now did Amazon do anything illegal? No. Amazon was prompted to remove the two texts out of concern regarding what appears to be clear violation of copyright laws in the distribution of the texts. There is nothing to suggest that what they did was illegal.

Yes, clearly it was within Amazon’s rights to do it, and the company has a responsibility to protect itself from potential litigation.

A lot (?), some (?), most (?), a few(?) folks don’t realize than when one purchases an ebook, you don’t really own the file. You buy the rights to access electronic data not ownership of that data. Code is loaded onto your device. Amazon retains substantial control over content on the physical Kindle you purchase – it’s all in the terms and conditions to which one agrees.

Was the legal decision poorly executed from a marketing/PR perspective on Amazon.com’s part? Yes. Essentially they deleted the files remotely in the dark of the night without any announcement. Still not illegal … less than brilliant move from a public relation’s view, yep.

If Amazon.com’s actions were normatively wrong (as separate from legally wrong) or what it might mean potentially is less clear to me. And the latter is most interesting, im-ever-ho.


Interesting, again im-ever-ho, quotes from an Op-Ed in the Christian Science Monitor “Kindle e-reader: A Trojan horse for free thought” on the incident:

Quote

“Kindle is the kind of technology that challenges media freedom and restricts media pluralism. It exacerbates what historian William Leach calls ‘the landscape of the temporary’: a hyper mobile and rootless society that prefers access to ownership. Such a society is vulnerable to the dangers of selective censorship and control.”

Thinking historically about the role of literature: books, pamphlets, and other written material to communicate ideas, there have been a lot of ideas communicated that a lot of people in power didn’t want communicated. From Federalist papers and Paine’s “Common Sense” pamphlets (one might call them the works of the “American Liberation Organization”, the ALO ) to Vaclev’s Havel’s plays that challenged communist rule and wrongs in then-Czechoslovakia to the Pentagon Papers.

This comes in the wake of the much heralded use of Twitter in conjunction with the recent protests of apparent voter fraud in Iran (or perhaps over-hyped) as an example of the power of new information and communications technology (ICT) to empower civil society, democracy, and transparency. The Kindle incident shows, first that ICT is a dual-use technology. It can be used for good and has the *potential* to do be used for harm and to restrict freedom. Intent is critical. (And to be explicit, I’m not saying that what Amazon did was wrong but it shows the potential; I’m also not explicitly saying that while clearly legal, that it was right. Right and wrong are normatives.)

The comparison with Twitter in Iran also makes me cognizant of the need to not over-hype or over-react to single incidents … but to be aware.

Another quote from the CSM Op-Ed:

Quote

“Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to lock in its library, raises critical questions about the nature of property and identity in digital culture. Culture plays a large role – in some ways, larger than government – in shaping who we are as individuals in a society. The First Amendment protects our right to participate in the production of that culture. The widespread commodification of access is shaping nearly every aspect of modern citizenship. There are benefits, to be sure, but this transformation also poses a big-time threat to free expression and assembly.”

Do you agree? Is it something you worry about or not even on your metaphorical radar?

One of the revolutionary ideas of liberalism (the classical version) was the notion of private property. That stuff, including but not limited to land, could belong to common people and not be subject to seizure by the ruler (usually monarch) or less often, the Church. Owning ideas is not the same as physical property, but I do think that technology is further enabling blurring of what previously were clear cut demarcations.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nigel99 619]

Actually I think that we have steadily given away our ownership rights over the past 30 years and I wouldn't be surprised to find that we don't own anything that we have digitally. For example most computer software that you buy is simply a license to use - and ownership is retained by the company (e.g Microsoft).

It is something that I think about, and while I am entirely passive about it, it does irritate/worry me. A classic example was that I noticed on gmail that the adverts targeted the content of my email, based on a document that I attached. We give away our rights all the time by just ticking the "agree to terms & conditions" without reading them.

I know that in the age of "green" and worrying about environmental impact it is not PC but I definately prefer owning physical assets -whether it is a CD not an MP3 or a book/DVD.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Gawain 0]

If I were in possession of physical copies of 1984 and Animal Farm in my home, purchased from some third party outlet, no one would have the right to just come on in and seize those items from me.

So, in letter of the law, I agree, Amazon was right. But the law is bad. Amazon should have been held liable to the publisher, and paid royalties for making the files available, and should revise their T&Cs for Kindle owners, who for all intents and purposes did not violate any laws.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[downwardspiral 0]

Interesting.... it was definitely wrong of Amazon to delete the books from purchasers machines. I'm wondering if deleting the books even absolves Amazon of any potential lawsuit by the copyright owners. From a business perspective I would think losing the trust of their entire customer base would be more costly than settling with the copyright owners.

In a game called Project Entropia a gamer invested $100K to have the game developers design a space resort that included 1,000 apartments which the investor could then sell from anywhere between $100 to $1,000 each. I just heard about this last night and found the thought of virtual real estate a brilliant idea. In light of what Amazon just did...maybe not so brilliant afterall.

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[GeorgiaDon 380]

Clearly Amazon could have handled this better on a couple of levels. They should have made more of an effort to verify the copyright status/proper licensing of the works, and they could have done a much better job of informing their customers of their actions. On the other hand, the customers have a responsibility to understand the contracts they agree to. In a way Kindle is more like a library in the sense that you can get access but don't own the works, the only difference is that you don't normally have to return them. That could be made more explicit to customers.

I think it's kind of ironic that "1984" was involved in this. In "1984" the government would rewrite history, change all the records whenever policies or alliances changed so the populace could never prove that things hadn't always been the way they are "now". How much easier would that be if the government (or some private company) could just replace computer files in the middle of the night, instead of deleting them?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

If I were in possession of physical copies of 1984 and Animal Farm in my home, purchased from some third party outlet, no one would have the right to just come on in and seize those items from me.

If you created a digital copy by scanning your book and made such a copy available for sale--while the "third party outlet", aka the retailer, would not have the right--I would not go as far as to say "no one would have the right to just come on in and seize those items from me".

I agree Amazon could have handled the situation better, but I really do not see the big deal.

Per the NYTimes article, the engineer will not buy another Kindle if his breaks. Well, that's silly. I guess he does not expect new, convenient options to have a learning curve and/or bumps in the road to make a better product. The British technology officer is frustrated because he is confused he has lost some right to his download? That's weird. The student did not have any sort of backup for a class assignment and relied on a new device as the end all/be all for "his work"? It's a "summer assignment", silly--you have all summer to do it over and learn from your mistake.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

Now did Amazon do anything illegal? No. Amazon was prompted to remove the two texts out of concern regarding what appears to be clear violation of copyright laws in the distribution of the texts. There is nothing to suggest that what they did was illegal.

I believe Amazon did. Basically it is the same as a corner bookstore learned that they actually sold counterfeit books - so they swept through their customer houses, removed all the sold books from their homes, and left the checks for the amount.

I would also suggest it was a not well-thought move by Amazon, because it did not protect them from the copyright infringement suit (I don't think they could use DMCA "safe harbor" because they were actually _selling_ the books - this of course depends on their due diligence). And it now makes Amazon a possible target from a much larger class action suit - sure, the one like where the lawyers will make 1M and each customer will get a $5 discount for a next book - but still they'd do better without it.

Quote

Yes, clearly it was within Amazon’s rights to do it, and the company has a responsibility to protect itself from potential litigation.

I believe they overstepped their boundaries. Even if they are protected by DMCA safe harbor clause (which, again, I do not believe in), the clause just says that you need to timely remove the copyright material from your site. It does not say you need to go for everyone who downloaded the copyrighted material, and delete it.

Quote

A lot (?), some (?), most (?), a few(?) folks don’t realize than when one purchases an ebook, you don’t really own the file. You buy the rights to access electronic data not ownership of that data.

I believe this is incorrect classification.
First, let's talk about ownership. Even if you have a ebook, video or music file, you only own a container, not the file content. It is no more different than owning a movie DVD - you own the container (the disk itself), and could resell it, destroy it, or use it. But you do not own the content (the movie itself), and you cannot for example sell copies or create derivative works except some cases allowed by the copyright law.

The difference is the file format - i.e. whether the file is in "open" format, or in protected (DRM) format. If the file you have is in open format, then your access to the content cannot be restricted. However when the file you have is in protected format, then the fact you own a file means nothing. It is similar to owning a DVD disk but having to call the studio for an access code each time you want to watch a movie.

What happens in this case is that people purchased a file encrypted with DRM, so they do not know what is inside and you cannot even say for sure that the content you bought and backed up will be there until you remove it. This is combined with closed-source platform, which is basically a black box with unknown functionality, and it uses signed binaries - which in consumer electronics is a definitive sign the device does something the users would not like it to do. So it was only matter of times when such a power would be abused.

This is the reason why I do not own DRM devices, and files with DRM. I only buy ebooks which I could read on a PC, I only buy music in MP3 or OGG, I have never bought ebook on Amazon or music on iTunes. All my music and ebooks are safe. They will be available for me to read and to listen in 100 years.

Quote

This comes in the wake of the much heralded use of Twitter in conjunction with the recent protests of apparent voter fraud in Iran (or perhaps over-hyped) as an example of the power of new information and communications technology (ICT) to empower civil society, democracy, and transparency. The Kindle incident shows, first that ICT is a dual-use technology. It can be used for good and has the *potential* to do be used for harm and to restrict freedom. Intent is critical.

I'd say that a technology is not "dual-use", it is just agnostic to "good and evil". Every DRM I've seen was based on symmetric encryption + asymmetric encryption + crypto hashes + key delivery algorithm. Those technologies are used everywhere, from your hard drive to make sure the data stored in the file system was correct, to BlueRay movies which supposedly should be copy-protected (but of course aren't).

Also "good" and "evil" heavily depend on the person. For example, while DRM is definitely evil for the consumer, the RIAA/publishers love it - this is the way they could charge you each time you listen to the song, or copy it into any player you own.

Quote

Another quote from the CSM Op-Ed: ***“Digital rights management (DRM), which Kindle uses to lock in its library, raises critical questions about the nature of property and identity in digital culture.

This is a good quote, and they found the problem precisely. Digital file formats are not a problem. They are future. The real problem is DRM, and providing the publisher with means to regulate how you use the content you paid for is in reality quite dangerous. Especially when used with intrusive technologies most DRM come with.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

If you created a digital copy by scanning your book and made such a copy available for sale--while the "third party outlet", aka the retailer, would not have the right--I would not go as far as to say "no one would have the right to just come on in and seize those items from me".

We're talking about what happened to buyers, not what happened to sellers. What if he BOUGHT such a book from a legitimate retailer like B&N? Would you also say that some people might have right to just come on in and seize those items from him? If a publisher says like: "ok, I sold those DVDs for $15, but I now want to get them back and sell it for $30", would you be ok for them to seize your legitimately purchased DVDs and leave you a check for $15, so you could go and buy another one for $30?

Quote

I agree Amazon could have handled the situation better, but I really do not see the big deal.

There is over 700 1-star Kindle reviews on Amazon right now. Three weeks ago there was around 15. Apparently it IS a big deal for a lot of people, and they are right about it.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[DSE 5]

Quote

. From a business perspective I would think losing the trust of their entire customer base would be more costly than settling with the copyright owners.

.

Not even close by the most broad concept. The copyright holders don't get to negotiate copyright value of a master.
Amazon handled it badly, IMO, but their first responsibility was in vetting the reps and warrants of the third-party provider that at some point claimed they had the right to distribute the ebooks. However, had Amazon taken no action, it becomes criminal as well as civil.
To Marg's question; we've given up nothing over the years. What has changed is our access, but the laws as relates to distribution have changed very, very little (other than the MickeyMouse/Bono Act). Unfortunately, music (as one example) is the soundtrack of our lives and because we take these things so personally, there becomes a sense of "ownership." Add to that the fact that we can legally have a copy in our DVD/CD player, iPod, HDD, and other digital delivery mechanisms (although DMCA prohibits being able to play the same file back at the same time on multiple devices), the modern consumer has equated freedom of access to "ownership." The concept of "license to listen" is even now, still very alien to most music lovers. Other than those who have published music, no member of this community actually owns any music at all; you merely possess a license to listen. In the case of an ebook, you own nothing but a license to read, or with a DVD, a license to watch. Nothing more than permission to enjoy.
No, B&N couldn't/wouldn't sneak into your home in the middle of the night to retrieve illegal prints of a popular novel, but that's not a relevant comparison in that the Kindle version isn't tangible; the B&N purchase is.
One thing I still find knee-slapping hilarious in this discussion within this community is that someone may be pissed about this happening via a Kindle, but in the very same breath are still using copyrighted media in their skydiving videos posted online or in student/tandem DVDs and defending their right to do so. ("I bought the CD so it must be OK")

To reiterate my opinion however, Amazon handled this situation poorly. One option would have been to pay royalties to a legit distributor of the Orwell books and given purchasers an option to have a legal licensed copy, or exchange the illegal copy for some other legit book. _That_ would probably have been less costly than the obvious loss of customer support they've recently experienced.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

For example most computer software that you buy is simply a license to use - and ownership is retained by the company (e.g Microsoft).

The reason for this is if they were to actually sell the software, they'd have to include the source code.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

There have been laws on media (movies, music, etc.) for years but they were not (and really still aren't yet) easily enforceable. So they are mostly ignored.

Now that technology is finally coming about to assist in their enforcement, perhaps those laws need to be revisited prior.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[DSE 5]

Quote

There have been laws on media (movies, music, etc.) for years but they were not (and really still aren't yet) easily enforceable. So they are mostly ignored.

Now that technology is finally coming about to assist in their enforcement, perhaps those laws need to be revisited prior.

Actually very easy to enforce; just difficult to catch. Now it's easy(ier) to catch, it becomes a decision of what falls into DeMinimis and what is worth spending the cash to defend (although if owners don't defend, they'll eventully lose the right/opportunity to defend, which may well be what drives a large portion of copyright law changes in the far future).

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Actually very easy to enforce; just difficult to catch. Now it's easy(ier) to catch,

What's the difference between enforce and catch? How can you enforce something if you can't catch them?

How is it easy to enforce against friends copying back and forth MP3's and DVD's if they aren't doing it via the Internet?

Unless everything non public domain becomes DRM (shudder) it's not possible.

Even then the best they can do is just make it harder for people to do it so they have to actively break the law versus passively. There will always be hacks.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Actually I think that we have steadily given away our ownership rights over the past 30 years

I’m curious: what other examples you see of this over the last 30 years or so? Not saying there are or aren’t, just curious what you see as being other examples.

Quote

I know that in the age of "green" and worrying about environmental impact it is not PC but I definately prefer owning physical assets -whether it is a CD not an MP3 or a book/DVD.

I hadn’t thought of it that way.

Am tempted to invoke a new version of a popular aphorism: they’ll take my books when they pry them out of my cold dead hands.

There is also the issue of preserving records. While paper is not forever, it is less problematic to archive than electronic records, which may or may not be in a currently readable form, e.g., remember the Millennium Bug search for programmers who knew COBOL? Among the complaints about PowerPoint, it doesn’t enable preservation details of the how a decision-making process is made that typically are found in briefing papers or information memos/appendices. I moved recently and while I don’t have any of the 8” floppy disk, I do/did still have 3.5” disks (most of which I just tossed) and Jaz disks. At the time, those were fabulous for what I was doing (working with relatively large data sets). None of my current computers has built-in drives to read those. There’s a lot of data on the Jaz disks.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

In a game called Project Entropia a gamer invested $100K to have the game developers design a space resort that included 1,000 apartments which the investor could then sell from anywhere between $100 to $1,000 each. I just heard about this last night and found the thought of virtual real estate a brilliant idea. In light of what Amazon just did...maybe not so brilliant afterall.

That game looks cool to me. I’m the first to admit that I don’t know a lot about online gaming. That’s a first, yes? I thought that one could sell stuff in Second Life. Or is it the potential magnitude that is new? I remember reading a while back on the idea of making money/earning living through Second Life. Not the same article but this one from early 2007 noted that the founder of Second Life “estimated that 17000 residents had positive cash flow in Linden dollars, with about 450 generating monthly income in excess of $1000” (real dollars). Iirc, the bottom-line *then* was that it was low return and very hard to do … at that time.

The intersection of real estate speculation in Project Entropia makes me wonder if 100 years from now (or less), will there be a virtual mortgage crisis?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

I think it's kind of ironic that "1984" was involved in this. In "1984" the government would rewrite history, change all the records whenever policies or alliances changed so the populace could never prove that things hadn't always been the way they are "now". How much easier would that be if the government (or some private company) could just replace computer files in the middle of the night, instead of deleting them?

Concur on the irony.

You've identified a potential with huge implications.

Throughout human history, folks have tried to change the record or alter it to reflect what they want/their intentions. The question, imo, is there something inherent in electronic data that makes that easier to do and harder to detect. How does one validate/verify what was the "original"?

For example, how about the implications for electronic voting and fraud?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

I think it's kind of ironic that "1984" was involved in this. In "1984" the government would rewrite history, change all the records whenever policies or alliances changed so the populace could never prove that things hadn't always been the way they are "now". How much easier would that be if the government (or some private company) could just replace computer files in the middle of the night, instead of deleting them?

Concur on the irony.

You've identified a potential with huge implications.

Throughout human history, folks have tried to change the record or alter it to reflect what they want/their intentions. The question, imo, is there something inherent in electronic data that makes that easier to do and harder to detect. How does one validate/verify what was the "original"?

For example, how about the implications for electronic voting and fraud?

/Marg

I think the biggest safeguard against this scenario is probably the sheer amount of people that have access to information in one form or another through the internet - SOMEONE will find out that this is being done.

[nerdgirl 0]

Thanks for chiming in. I know you know more than most and possbly anyone on this board on idiosyncrasies, realities, and underlying arguments of copyright.

Quote

In the case of an ebook, you own nothing but a license to read, or with a DVD, a license to watch. Nothing more than permission to enjoy.
No, B&N couldn't/wouldn't sneak into your home in the middle of the night to retrieve illegal prints of a popular novel, but that's not a relevant comparison in that the Kindle version isn't tangible; the B&N purchase is.

Most of us think of a Kindle like a physical book (to some degree) because we're getting same/similar information and parts of it "feel" like the same process. It's sold as a replacement for books. You're reading the same thing you might read in a book. It's not a book tho.'

As you point out, even with books there are limits on what an individual can do with the ideas contained therein, e.g., fair use copyright laws.

Realistically, a bricks & mortar book seller (in the US/Western Europe, CAN/AUS/NZ) is unlikely to sell home-bound copies of something that was copied on a Xerox machine. If they did, the liklihood of anyone coming after a customer's purchase is low. But that's what was done w/the Kindle version of _1984_.

Quote

One thing I still find knee-slapping hilarious in this discussion within this community is that someone may be pissed about this happening via a Kindle, but in the very same breath are still using copyrighted media in their skydiving videos posted online or in student/tandem DVDs and defending their right to do so. ("I bought the CD so it must be OK")

That's a fair point.

Quote

To reiterate my opinion however, Amazon handled this situation poorly. One option would have been to pay royalties to a legit distributor of the Orwell books and given purchasers an option to have a legal licensed copy, or exchange the illegal copy for some other legit book. _That_ would probably have been less costly than the obvious loss of customer support they've recently experienced.

Agree. It really surprised me how un-tech savvy their actions were. If they had done something like you suggested, I bet we never would have heard of the case.

Apology from Amazon.com's CEO.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nigel99 619]

Quote

I’m curious: what other examples you see of this over the last 30 years or so? Not saying there are or aren’t, just curious what you see as being other examples.

I was specifically thinking of the arrival of the PC and it's impact on our lives. When you look at it a secretary typing out your notes did not get any "ownership" - neither did the paper manufacturers or typewriter manufacturer. However as we have moved over to digital formats we have chosen to "encode" our idea's and property in file formats that are explicitly owned by someone else.

The fundamental problem is that the general public (lawmakers) do not understand what software is, and therefore accepted practice amongst software vendors in their licensing models has allowed them far more "rights" than traditional products. For example Ford do not simply assign you a license to drive one of their cars while they retain ownership!

I think digital media (in its many forms) is unique in this respect.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

I’m curious: what other examples you see of this over the last 30 years or so? Not saying there are or aren’t, just curious what you see as being other examples.

I was specifically thinking of the arrival of the PC and it's impact on our lives. When you look at it a secretary typing out your notes did not get any "ownership" - neither did the paper manufacturers or typewriter manufacturer. However as we have moved over to digital formats we have chosen to "encode" our idea's and property in file formats that are explicitly owned by someone else.

The fundamental problem is that the general public (lawmakers) do not understand what software is, and therefore accepted practice amongst software vendors in their licensing models has allowed them far more "rights" than traditional products. For example Ford do not simply assign you a license to drive one of their cars while they retain ownership!

I think digital media (in its many forms) is unique in this respect.

In your example, you'd own the copyright to the notes typed by your secretary OR the ones you wrote in a word processor. MS grants you a license to use MS Word, meaning you can't reproduce it illegally - but they don't own what you CREATE with that program.

In your car example, the more appropriate analogy is that Ford sells you the car, which you own, but they don't sell you the car design - so you can't go out and build your own without running into intellectual property issues.

The reason that it's such an issue with books, music, etc vs something like a car is that the car itself has a value (though the trademarks and patents associated with the car are worth far MORE than a single car) but when you buy a music file - the content of the file has much greater value than the file itself, or the book you buy at the bookstore - the content of the book is what makes it valuable, not the paper it's printed on.

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

However, had Amazon taken no action, it becomes criminal as well as civil.

Nobody says they should haven't done anything. All they needed to do is to stop distribution; deleting content from user-owned devices is not a thing to do. Same with eBay - they could be considered the same model distribution, making available third-party content from their web site and charging this 3rd party a fee. However when they learn someone sells counterfeit goods, they terminate the listing/suspend the account, and nobody expects them to take items back from all the buyers.

I really hope a class action lawsuit will be brought, and Amazon will have to pay for that.

Quote

To Marg's question; we've given up nothing over the years. What has changed is our access, but the laws as relates to distribution have changed very, very little (other than the MickeyMouse/Bono Act).

I disagree. Before if you buy a book, music or video you were pretty much sure that you will be able to read, listen or watch it forever. This has changed; for some (I'd say crappy) content providers this is not the case anymore, and basically you will only have access to the content you bought until the providers is in the business. Which is perfectly fine with the content providers, but not fine with me.

Quote

The concept of "license to listen" is even now, still very alien to most music lovers.

Same as concept of "license to read" is very alien to most book lovers.
Did you read

Quote

Other than those who have published music, no member of this community actually owns any music at all; you merely possess a license to listen.

Well, no. I do own my music. I just do not own copyright on it, which means that for example I cannot make copies of it and give them to my friends. It is, however, no different than I own my Zippo - I also do not own copyright on it, and cannot make copies of it and give them to my friends.

You might want to find [url "http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/if-it-looks-duck-seattle-judge-finds-software-was-">this case interesting. It is about software, but it could easily be applied to music or videos.

Quote

In the case of an ebook, you own nothing but a license to read, or with a DVD, a license to watch. Nothing more than permission to enjoy.

If this was true, there would be completely no difference between a book you bought in a bookstore, and a book you rented from a library. In both cases you have "license to read", but obviously you understand that in the first case you own something more than just "license to read". For example, you can resell it.

Quote

No, B&N couldn't/wouldn't sneak into your home in the middle of the night to retrieve illegal prints of a popular novel, but that's not a relevant comparison in that the Kindle version isn't tangible; the B&N purchase is.

Could you please explain why is it not a relevant comparison? In both cases the customer paid money for a book. In both cases, according to you, all he got is "license to read". Why then it is acceptable to revoke this license in one case, but not acceptable in other case?

Quote

One thing I still find knee-slapping hilarious in this discussion within this community is that someone may be pissed about this happening via a Kindle, but in the very same breath are still using copyrighted media in their skydiving videos posted online or in student/tandem DVDs and defending their right to do so. ("I bought the CD so it must be OK")

You're talking about a completely different case here, aren't you? If you consider it relevant, could you please explain?

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

Quote

However, had Amazon taken no action, it becomes criminal as well as civil.

Nobody says they should haven't done anything. All they needed to do is to stop distribution; deleting content from user-owned devices is not a thing to do. Same with eBay - they could be considered the same model distribution, making available third-party content from their web site and charging this 3rd party a fee. However when they learn someone sells counterfeit goods, they terminate the listing/suspend the account, and nobody expects them to take items back from all the buyers.

I really hope a class action lawsuit will be brought, and Amazon will have to pay for that.

Quote

To Marg's question; we've given up nothing over the years. What has changed is our access, but the laws as relates to distribution have changed very, very little (other than the MickeyMouse/Bono Act).

I disagree. Before if you buy a book, music or video you were pretty much sure that you will be able to read, listen or watch it forever. This has changed; for some (I'd say crappy) content providers this is not the case anymore, and basically you will only have access to the content you bought until the providers is in the business. Which is perfectly fine with the content providers, but not fine with me.

Quote

The concept of "license to listen" is even now, still very alien to most music lovers.

Same as concept of "license to read" is very alien to most book lovers.
Did you read

Quote

Other than those who have published music, no member of this community actually owns any music at all; you merely possess a license to listen.

Well, no. I do own my music. I just do not own copyright on it, which means that for example I cannot make copies of it and give them to my friends. It is, however, no different than I own my Zippo - I also do not own copyright on it, and cannot make copies of it and give them to my friends.

You might want to find [url "http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2008/05/if-it-looks-duck-seattle-judge-finds-software-was-">this case interesting. It is about software, but it could easily be applied to music or videos.

Quote

In the case of an ebook, you own nothing but a license to read, or with a DVD, a license to watch. Nothing more than permission to enjoy.

If this was true, there would be completely no difference between a book you bought in a bookstore, and a book you rented from a library. In both cases you have "license to read", but obviously you understand that in the first case you own something more than just "license to read". For example, you can resell it.

Quote

No, B&N couldn't/wouldn't sneak into your home in the middle of the night to retrieve illegal prints of a popular novel, but that's not a relevant comparison in that the Kindle version isn't tangible; the B&N purchase is.

Could you please explain why is it not a relevant comparison? In both cases the customer paid money for a book. In both cases, according to you, all he got is "license to read". Why then it is acceptable to revoke this license in one case, but not acceptable in other case?

Quote

One thing I still find knee-slapping hilarious in this discussion within this community is that someone may be pissed about this happening via a Kindle, but in the very same breath are still using copyrighted media in their skydiving videos posted online or in student/tandem DVDs and defending their right to do so. ("I bought the CD so it must be OK")

You're talking about a completely different case here, aren't you? If you consider it relevant, could you please explain?

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

I think that it has a lot to do with the EULA that Amazon has - I haven't read it but if it says they can do this, then they can do this.

Here's Amazon Kindle: License Agreement and Terms of Use. It is short enough (comparing for example to Microsoft Windows agreement most people accepted without even scrolling through), so I suggest looking through. I cannot find any place which would explicitly give Amazon permission to remove anything from the device. Even more, it says the following:


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.


As you see, it explicitly says that you have right to keep a permanent copy of the purchased content.

Quote

If you bought a book and as part of the purchasing agreement you agreed to they say they can come to your house and ask you for the book back (not going into the 'breaking into your house' thing because then that goes down the road of tresspassing laws and things like that) then they can come to your house and demand the book back.

Then why anyone would purchase such a book, if you can get it from the library for free on similar (actually even better) terms?

Quote

The fact that CDs, tapes, whatever, wear out means you can't listen to the music forever - you have to go out and spend the money on a new CD.

This is not correct. You can rip CDs to your computer into a lossless format like FLAC, and make a new CD as soon as yours wears out. This is especially useful with kids CDs and DVDs, as they do not treat those very well. Same with tapes, and whatever.

Quote

You own the medium your music is on, not the music itself. And the Zippo thing - I guess you could own the copyright on anything on it or perhaps the design itself (then you start talking about trademarks as well), but the inner workings of it is a patent issue.

I'm not really familiar with this aspect, but in my opinion design is covered by copyright law, not by patent law. You can get patent on innovation, but not for a creative work which is design.

Quote

I think that everyone agrees that it wasn't the smartest PR move by Amazon, but if the EULA said they can do it, they did nothing illegal.

My point is that their LA doesn't say that.

Quote

Also, if people are so angered by this, why not just go to a different content provider?

Or disable this feature.
For example, iPhone has such a feature in its AppStore. Nintendo Wii has it. That's why I do not use iTunes at all (in fact I removed it completely from my iPhone), and my Wii is not connected to Internet (and if I decide to connect it, I will firewall Nintendo sites).

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[FreeflyChile 0]

Quote

As you see, it explicitly says that you have right to keep a permanent copy of the purchased content.

Looks that way.

Quote

Then why anyone would purchase such a book, if you can get it from the library for free on similar (actually even better) terms?

Not saying that anyone WOULD - just that it's possible.

Quote

This is not correct. You can rip CDs to your computer into a lossless format like FLAC, and make a new CD as soon as yours wears out. This is especially useful with kids CDs and DVDs, as they do not treat those very well. Same with tapes, and whatever.

Hard drives crash as well. My point is that if you lose the music, you can't go to the content provider and say "give me a new one for free because I lost my old one" - some providers may allow you to do it, but that's their choice.

Quote

I'm not really familiar with this aspect, but in my opinion design is covered by copyright law, not by patent law. You can get patent on innovation, but not for a creative work which is design.

Actually, you can get a design patent, but you can also get a copyright on the design (as well as a trademark) - but I was referring to the internal workings of the Zippo as making a copy of it - that would be a patent issue.

Quote

Or disable this feature.
For example, iPhone has such a feature in its AppStore. Nintendo Wii has it. That's why I do not use iTunes at all (in fact I removed it completely from my iPhone), and my Wii is not connected to Internet (and if I decide to connect it, I will firewall Nintendo sites).

I also despise iTunes because of the limitations on the use of the media and how difficult it makes it to do even simple things with it. I have a MS Zune and the stuff in that didn't let me upload the digital copy of the Dark Knight that comes with the BD version into it. So I know what you're getting at and agree completely.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Also, if people are so angered by this, why not just go to a different content provider?

Or disable this feature.
For example, iPhone has such a feature in its AppStore. Nintendo Wii has it. That's why I do not use iTunes at all (in fact I removed it completely from my iPhone), and my Wii is not connected to Internet (and if I decide to connect it, I will firewall Nintendo sites).

While that is a way around it, it doesn't send as much of a message as not buying a companies products altogether if you don't like their business practices. Why support them at all?

To put it in more relevant terms it'd be like jumping at ASC but hating Skyride.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.