Amazon deletes legally purchased Kindle books [Archive]

PepperElf

07-19-2009, 04:18 PM

http://gizmodo.com/5317180/big-brother-amazon-remotely-deletes-purchased-copies-of-1984-and-animal-farm-from-thousands-of-kindles

yep. Amazon changed their minds about letting people read Orwell books on the kindle and decided to revoke the purchases and just remotely delete the books and refund the customers.

like the writer of the article this is why i won't buy a kindle
i don't like the idea that amazon can just decide that they don't want you to have something you legally purchased and just take it away from you after the fact.

that's really sucky, even if they refund the customers.

in fact... i'm wondering if it's even legal.

i mean if someone came into my house and tried to take away a physical book i bought and claim it was OK because they're refunding me... that wouldn't be legal, so why should it be legal for a kindle book?

BroomJockey

07-19-2009, 04:31 PM

It wasn't Amazon, it was the publisher. They decided against allowing electronic versions, and leaned on Amazon to delete it. Amazon folded rather than pissing off a publisher.

PepperElf

07-19-2009, 09:35 PM

it's still, for me, a perfect reason to not get a kindle.
cos once i've downloaded something i sure as heck don't want a company rooting around inside my electronic book to take it away.

that's why i have the sony version that doesn't go online. ... i just stick rtf books on it normally

BroomJockey

07-19-2009, 10:11 PM

Fair enough. I just want outrage directed to where it should be. It's a dick move, but I can't really blame Amazon over it.

Flyndaran

07-19-2009, 11:16 PM

Did my first post from this thread get erased or was it some kind of board hiccough? I don't have a reply saying that it was taken out for content.

BroomJockey

07-19-2009, 11:17 PM

was it some kind of board hiccough?

Unless Boozy or another mod knows differently, it must have been a hiccough. I haven't seen any posts from you in this thread previously.

Flyndaran

07-20-2009, 12:05 AM

Unless Boozy or another mod knows differently, it must have been a hiccough. I haven't seen any posts from you in this thread previously.

Weird then.

My previous post was just about how if all those people that want to consider things like copywright theft just as real as theft of physical objects, then they better do so even when it isn't in their favor.

Edit: Oops. I actually posted to another forum. I so rarely post there I completely forgot about it.

BroomJockey

07-20-2009, 12:51 AM

then they better do so even when it isn't in their favor.

They claim it's "different" because they refunded the purchase price. :rolleyes:

Still an asshole move by the publisher.

Flyndaran

07-20-2009, 01:11 AM

They claim it's "different" because they refunded the purchase price. :rolleyes:

Still an asshole move by the publisher.

They don't get to take my physical book and repay me, so it isn't different in that way. Illegal move by the publisher.

BroomJockey

07-20-2009, 01:51 AM

No arguments here.

Pedersen

07-20-2009, 02:36 AM

My take on it, if I owned a Kindle (which, after this and a couple of other stories, I never will):

I bought the electronic version of the book from Amazon. I entered into a contract to buy the product. I gave them money, they gave me a copy of the book. What happened with the publisher is not my concern or problem. Once the sale is done, unless the product is defective, it is now mine to control. The fact that Amazon has removed something from my property that was legally acquired by me is, at best, reprehensible.

A useful analogy would be something in my home. I buy products from Target. Some time later, they come by my house in the middle of the night, enter, and remove my property, all without waking me. However, they're nice and hand over all the money I gave them for the product on the kitchen table. They do this on the grounds that the manufacturer decided they did not want to sell that product ever.

I'd be able to sue Target for any number of legal violations. Trespassing, unlawful entry, theft (since I did not agree to sell them my property, and them leaving money is effectively them trying to buy it back), and probably several others (depending on local laws).

Now, since this is electronic access, we don't have trespassing or unlawful entry. But there is misuse of a computer system (possibly, would have to read the specific laws on that), and theft.

Amazon is in the wrong here. They screwed up. I hope they get taken to the cleaners by the people who did get shafted. I also hope the publisher gets taken to the cleaners by Amazon. After all, Amazon now gets the loss of business (people who won't buy a Kindle now, where they might have before), loss of reputation, loss of goodwill, and the loss of how much money they paid out to their customers who are now short a book on their devices.

Both of them deserve to lose out. I'm just not sure which one deserves it more.

AdminAssistant

07-20-2009, 03:26 AM

Doesn't ITunes do the same thing sometimes with music?

I stare at a computer screen to write papers and read forums and do e-mail....and that's plenty. Call me old-fashioned, but when I want to read a book, I want to be holding something made of paper. I print out practically all of my research articles. Partially to prevent eye strain, but also because I like to make notes as I read, and...my pencil won't work on the computer screen. :p

BroomJockey

07-20-2009, 03:52 AM

Ya know, a decent pen or highlighter would solve that problem.

AdminAssistant

07-20-2009, 03:56 AM

Ya know, a decent pen or highlighter would solve that problem.

Which problem?? Yes, I highlight as I read, but also make notes in margins (and here I'm mostly talking about stuff for school). Because my memory ain't that great, and that's pretty much the only way I'm going to make it to the end of the collection of Foucault and remember anything about it.

BroomJockey

07-20-2009, 04:15 AM

The problem of not working on your monitor.

AdminAssistant

07-20-2009, 04:34 AM

The problem of not working on your monitor.

Oh, sorry, that was a joke....and I should really go to bed. Brain not working at 100% capacity.

tabbyblack13

07-27-2009, 03:59 AM

Off topic
Ya know, a decent pen or highlighter would solve that problem.
That makes me think of a dumb blond joke

Back on topic
This publisher that didn't have the rights to sell the electronic versions of these books. Because of that Amazon was forced to take back what they could and give a refund. Now for a paper book it is harder. If the publisher didn't have the proper rights then money would be paid to the owner. Also paper books have a clear ownership, it might not be so with electronic versions at the time the Kindle came out.

Pedersen

07-27-2009, 04:27 AM

This publisher that didn't have the rights to sell the electronic versions of these books.

I've been pondering based on that information since I first heard it a few days ago ( a week, maybe more? dunno). Amazon is a whole let less of a set of jerks in this particular situation, and the publisher that claimed to have the rights needs to be in a whole lot of trouble. That having been said...

Because of that Amazon was forced to take back what they could and give a refund.

Why? Amazon is not in law enforcement. They made transactions in good faith, as did the people who bought the electronic copies of the books. The law should protect them in this case, and require all recompense to be paid by the publisher that claimed to have the rights but did not.

Now for a paper book it is harder. If the publisher didn't have the proper rights then money would be paid to the owner.

And why should the electronic versions be any different? I have seen so many bad patents which amount to "doing an ordinary process on the internet". Times do exist where the law should treat the internet differently, but this does not seem to be one of them.

Again, the people who screwed up and (apparently) acted in bad faith are the ones who should be forced to pay, not Amazon, and not Amazon's customers.

Also paper books have a clear ownership, it might not be so with electronic versions at the time the Kindle came out.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to use ownership in an unclear fashion. Do you mean ownership of the physical object, or ownership of the copyright?

If you mean ownership of the physical object, then why is the ownership any different between a paperback book and a file?

If you mean ownership of the copyright, then that is trivial to track electronically. In fact, other publishers have been doing just this sort of thing on other devices for many years longer than the Kindle has existed.

I do have to amend my earlier statements, though. As of now, I will still never buy a Kindle, but that is because I now know that Amazon has a remote kill switch that is able to delete content that I have purchased, and they are able to do it without notification or consent on my part. I won't allow such a device to be in my possession.

BroomJockey

07-27-2009, 04:31 AM

It's bloody hard to distribute a paper book that you don't have the rights to. It's literally tens of thousands of dollars for a print run of a couple thousand. And getting in to a shop is nigh impossible if you're not going through a distributor. The best you'd be likely to do would be an adjunct business like the Amazon partners.

Really, though I don't blame Amazon for pulling the books, I've thought about this a lot, and come to a personal conclusion. Amazon DID fuck up. And hard. If they're selling and distributing something like this, they really need to monitor their upload service a little better. It's one thing to simply make space available, like the used services. It's another to let it be put on to a device you control.

Boozy

07-27-2009, 12:51 PM

Why? Amazon is not in law enforcement. They made transactions in good faith, as did the people who bought the electronic copies of the books. The law should protect them in this case, and require all recompense to be paid by the publisher that claimed to have the rights but did not.

Amazon has likely signed contracts with most major publishers that require them to make a reasonable effort to secure and safeguard the intellectual property rights of said publishers. Civil law is a mess when it comes the intellectual property (since there is still not enough precedent about things like this), so Amazon was attempting to cover their butts.

Pedersen

07-27-2009, 02:21 PM

Amazon has likely signed contracts with most major publishers that require them to make a reasonable effort to secure and safeguard the intellectual property rights of said publishers. Civil law is a mess when it comes the intellectual property (since there is still not enough precedent about things like this), so Amazon was attempting to cover their butts.

I was going to let this go, since I felt you were probably right. At least, right up until I read an apology (http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/forum/ref=cm_cd_ef_tft_tp?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1D7SY3BVSESG&cdThread=Tx1FXQPSF67X1IU&displayType=tagsDetail) from Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. Nowhere in that apology does it mention that it was contractually required to do so.

Furthermore, in another article (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10290047-56.html) about this, Amazon has promised that it will not delete already downloaded content from the Kindle again. This is further proof that Amazon was not contractually required to do so.

And the final nail in that coffin comes, in my mind, from the fact that no one has mentioned this elsewhere as anything more than speculation (http://www.google.com/search?q=was+amazon+contractually+required+to+dele te+ebooks+from+the+kindle).

Amazon, from everything I can tell, was not required in any fashion to perform the deletions. In fact, they have promised they will never do it again. To me, this says that they are not contractually obligated to do so. As for covering their asses, when they make promises stating that they won't delete already downloaded content in future (http://www.informationweek.com/news/personal_tech/drm/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=218501227), they now leave that same ass open for spanking by the publishers that they were trying to appease in the first place.

I do feel some pity for them: They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Anger the publishers, and lose the content. Anger the customers, and lose the sales. Of course, one extremely simple change to the system would have made the whole point moot: Don't include the ability to remotely delete already downloaded content. Without that, this debacle could not have occurred. All that Amazon could have done would be to say to the original rights holder "Look, we're sorry, but we can't do anything. We acted in good faith, so go sue the people who lied to us."

That ability should not have been in the Kindle to start. That was their mistake. And until it's removed, along with the ability to force the Kindle to update (so it can't be re-inserted later automatically), I won't buy such a device. I'll stick with the other e-readers out there, which do a very nice job on their own, and don't include that ability.

Boozy

07-27-2009, 03:00 PM

And the final nail in that coffin comes, in my mind, from the fact that no one has mentioned this elsewhere as anything more than speculation.

I was merely speculating too. Contracts that require reasonable safeguarding of IP rights are becoming so standard in this industry (at least in Canada), I just assumed there would be one involved.

tabbyblack13

07-29-2009, 02:24 AM

Unfortunately, you have chosen to use ownership in an unclear fashion. Do you mean ownership of the physical object, or ownership of the copyright?

I mean the ownership of the copyright.

I can't blame Amazon for pulling the books. Covering your but is one of the things large companies do the best.

Flyndaran

07-29-2009, 02:27 AM

I mean the ownership of the copyright.

I can't blame Amazon for pulling the books. Covering your but is one of the things large companies do the best.

The issue is that Amazon stole many e-books that were legally obtained. No one gets to steal my physical books just because they believe I may have obtained it illegally. That's what police and courts are for.

BroomJockey

07-29-2009, 03:39 AM

The issue is that Amazon stole many e-books that were legally obtained.

Did they? Steal, that is. After all, they refunded the purchase price. They simply nullified the transaction. While morally ambiguous, they didn't commit a crime under current laws. And if you look at it from the perspective of bootlegged DVDs and similar merchandise, you wouldn't have even got your money back, if the item was seized under counterfeiting laws.

Flyndaran

07-29-2009, 07:57 AM

Did they? Steal, that is. After all, they refunded the purchase price. They simply nullified the transaction. While morally ambiguous, they didn't commit a crime under current laws. And if you look at it from the perspective of bootlegged DVDs and similar merchandise, you wouldn't have even got your money back, if the item was seized under counterfeiting laws.

Would you have a problem if I took your car but left money in your mail box? It's still theft to take objects, and according to the pro-copywright people, information is just as real as objects.
The law says that you have to prove that my object is stolen before the authorities can take it.

BroomJockey

07-29-2009, 01:13 PM

Would you have a problem if I took your car but left money in your mail box?

Not the same. What would be the same is the dealership taking the car back, and leaving my money. Make sure you actually understand the situation before you throw out crappy analogies. And if they had no intention of selling the car to someone else after they took it from me, I'd be upset, but kinda hard-pressed to know what exactly would need to be done.

Nyoibo

07-29-2009, 01:22 PM

The analogy does still stand, it's not legal to take something back even if you give the money back after a transaction has been completed, unless it is with the full consent of the current owner, the fact that it was an electronic file and not a physical item does not negate that fact.

"Nullifying the transaction" as you put it is only valid if done before the customer has taken ownership of the item and even then is still iffy.

This may be a case however, of technology advancing faster than law.

BroomJockey

07-29-2009, 01:39 PM

The analogy does still stand,

No it doesn't. In his analogy, he'd have no right to the vehicle in any case. He'd be making a new sale, not nullifying an old one. In the *actual real world situation* the person who sold it found out the product was provided to them under false pretences, and made motion to appease the true owner of the work.

To expand on my previous analogy, what it's really similar to is if someone snuck in to a Ford plant, stole a new car, sold it to a used dealership, I bought it from the used dealership, and then they discovered it was stolen and that Ford wanted it back, so they come to my house, take it, and leave my cash and a note explaining the situation. Hey, I bought the car fair and square! Should still me mine, eh?

Nyoibo

07-29-2009, 02:08 PM

In that situation they have no right nor legal recourse to re-take the car, it's a matter for the authorities, no private party has the right to sieze the property of another, no matter the circumstances unless it is with full consent of the property owner.

BroomJockey

07-29-2009, 02:53 PM

IvorTangrean

07-31-2009, 03:08 AM

Pedersen

07-31-2009, 02:43 PM

If you read the agreement you don't own the e-books or the software to run the Kindle. Amazon has the rights to de-activate the OS on the hardware if they choose to.

You did manage to quote my first post on this thread, which is good. I've learned since that post, and made a change (that I've quoted below).

I do feel some pity for them: They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Anger the publishers, and lose the content. Anger the customers, and lose the sales. Of course, one extremely simple change to the system would have made the whole point moot: Don't include the ability to remotely delete already downloaded content. Without that, this debacle could not have occurred. All that Amazon could have done would be to say to the original rights holder "Look, we're sorry, but we can't do anything. We acted in good faith, so go sue the people who lied to us."

That ability should not have been in the Kindle to start. That was their mistake. And until it's removed, along with the ability to force the Kindle to update (so it can't be re-inserted later automatically), I won't buy such a device. I'll stick with the other e-readers out there, which do a very nice job on their own, and don't include that ability.

So, now that we have my updated position staring you in the face, I will ask you this simple question: How does what you stated above help Amazon at all? All you've done is prove that they had the legal permission to remove the data from the machine I bought.

Oh, feel free to spout copyright law at me. Doing software development all day every day, I'm completely ignorant of Title 17, USC (http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/), and all the other little bits of law that go along with it. I also know nothing of patents, trademarks, and the differences between the three.

Oh, wait, I got stopped being hit in the head by a hammer. That was stupid. I do know that bit of law far better than I would like. Of course, the fact that their inclusion of such a dubious "feature" was legal does not mean their inclusion was moral (see cases like Enron, Ameni Bahremi v. Majid Movahedi, Jim Crow laws of the US South, etc.). It also does not mean that their inclusion of said "feature" is something I should (or will) support. Until that "feature" is disabled (and the ability to re-enable it removed), I absolutely will not even be considering a Kindle, and instead will be looking at other devices on the market.

IDrinkaRum

07-31-2009, 05:04 PM

BroomJockey

07-31-2009, 05:16 PM

A high school student is suing Amazon because not only did they take away the electronic books by Orwell, but they also took away his electronic notes. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090731/ap_en_ot/us_tec_amazon_kindle_lawsuit)

Kid's damned own fault. Lawsuit's retarded, and better not go anywhere. "I didn't know" is not a defence. They've done it before, and they've already promised to not do it again, so asking for a ban isn't going to help. And they can't give him a legitimate copy because there isn't one. That was the whole point of the original exercise.

Flyndaran

07-31-2009, 05:22 PM

Kid's damned own fault. Lawsuit's retarded, and better not go anywhere. "I didn't know" is not a defence. They've done it before, and they've already promised to not do it again, so asking for a ban isn't going to help. And they can't give him a legitimate copy because there isn't one. That was the whole point of the original exercise.

Did you actually read the article. It says that he purchased the book legitimately. Theft is usually considered a crime and not "one's own fault".

BroomJockey

07-31-2009, 05:29 PM

Theft is usually considered a crime and not "one's own fault".

I DID read the article! That would be how I knew how to respond. Amazing how that works, ya know.

Not legally theft. They're selling access, not a copy. That means they can revoke access. Learn the law, not the FUD. Further, crafting his notes so that they're specifically reliant on one copy of the book is idiotic. What if his Kindle was damaged? What if that file was corrupted? What if what if what if. He was a fucking dumbass for tying his notes for something that important to something so ephemeral. If you can't make back-ups, or obtain a second copy on short notice, then you shouldn't be using it, unless it's some hyper-rare, million-dollar book, and it's your own fault when ANYTHING happens to it.

Pedersen

07-31-2009, 05:29 PM

Did you actually read the article. It says that he purchased the book legitimately. Theft is usually considered a crime and not "one's own fault".

Have you paid attention to what happened? Amazon sold rights to something they did not own. It would be the same as me coming to your home and selling a photocopy of a book I made off your shelves. I didn't have the right to sell it, therefore it is not possible for someone to have purchased it legitimately.

Amazon screwed up, big time, but not for the reason you've stated.

Pedersen

07-31-2009, 05:44 PM

Further, crafting his notes so that they're specifically reliant on one copy of the book is idiotic. What if his Kindle was damaged? What if that file was corrupted? What if what if what if.

Normally we see relatively close to eye to eye, Broom, but this time, no. You are, sadly, wrong. The student in question did exactly what students around the world do when they buy a book: They take a highlighter, and they mark up the book, they write notes in the margins to help them remember why they highlighted that piece.

Now, Amazon came along and managed to rip out the book without taking away his notes. A poor analogy would be a bookseller managing to turn all the text in your purchased book white (no, I don't know how), on a white page. You have your notes, your highlights, etc, but they are useless.

Are all of these students morons for expecting to have continued access to the books they've purchased? Is this student a moron for carrying that same expectation over to an electronic device? Isn't it kind of the point of these epaper device that the student will be able to reduce the amount of paper he carries around? If so, why should he therefore have to keep his notes on paper still? If not, then what's the point of these devices at all?

What if his papers get dropped in a puddle? What if they get stolen? What if they get burned? What if what if what if. At some point, we have to at least try to rely on something.

The argument you're making is that he shouldn't rely on the Kindle. As I've already stated, that is an argument I agree with, though for different reasons than you've given. In this case, I don't blame the student. He used the tools in his possession in the same way that pretty well every other serious student uses the non-electronic versions of those tools. He didn't screw up. Amazon did, though their screwup occurred way before the first Kindle was ever sold.

BroomJockey

07-31-2009, 06:58 PM

What if his papers get dropped in a puddle? What if they get stolen? What if they get burned? What if what if what if. At some point, we have to at least try to rely on something.

You're a programmer. How many back ups do you make of digital files which would be difficult to recreate? How many times on CS in Unsupportable have we gotten people saying "This frakker didn't make back ups, now he desperately needs to get a lost file back. Ass." As wonderful as the concept of a Kindle may be, it's not fully reliable technology, even without this backdoor. Paper mediums are more reliable, thus it's less foolish to have that as your only copy. After all, even a soaked book is salvageable with a minimum of effort. It won't be pretty after, but it still works well enough. And you can quickly get another copy. Bookstore, library, etc. To rely on a volatile storage format and be reliant solely on it IS a bad idea. His notes can't be used on a physical copy? Bad idea. If he'd made his notes in a separate file, not linked to that specific copy? Good idea! Resting your AP course on someone else's shoulders and trust them not to screw you over? Bad idea. If, even 10 years from now, Kindle-ish devices are around, then I'd say it's been proven well enough to risk being your sole device. Books have been around over a century. People know the risks. Apparently, he didn't know the risks of keeping things on the Kindle. Again, bad idea. Know the risks, evaluate the risks, and accept responsibility for the risks. Apparently, this kid did not do any of that. Not Amazon's fault.

Flyndaran

07-31-2009, 08:30 PM

...Apparently, this kid did not do any of that. Not Amazon's fault.
No. The kid's mistake does not absolve Amazon of culpability. They are still mostly at fault.

BroomJockey

07-31-2009, 09:53 PM

No. The kid's mistake does not absolve Amazon of culpability. They are still mostly at fault.

Culpability only applies to criminal acts. As I pointed out, by law, Amazon has done nothing wrong. As for Amazon being at fault, yes, their system for allowing people to upload books is flawed, as proven by the fact they've had multiple incidents, but the kid still is using "ignorance of the system" as a defence. "I thought this is how it worked" doesn't absolve you of being subject to a company's policies. They removed from circulation something that never should have been circulating in the first place. It's like a library refusing to renew a book when you go to renew it, as the book has been recalled. His lack of planning does not constitute legal grounds for a suit.

Pedersen

07-31-2009, 10:24 PM

Chatting with Broom, we did find something that is worth thinking about. He hasn't replied to me yet about it though :)

Regardless of how much of a moron the student may have been, he does have an issue that is directly the fault of Amazon.

He made a transaction with them, and then relied on the product he purchased. He made notes on that product, and was preparing some sort of work based on that product. Now, though, the student is being required to do extra work. He has to replace the book, and transfer/update his notes to reflect the new locations of anything he felt noteworthy.

That is work that he would not have needed to do if Amazon had done their due diligence with their upload service, the service that was used to sell a book to which they did not own the copyright. Amazon screwed up, and they are liable for the work lost due to this. On the flip side, the original uploader is liable to Amazon for any bills that Amazon incurs due to this, and Amazon should go after that uploader as well.

On those points, I hope we can all agree.

Flyndaran

08-01-2009, 01:59 AM

... They removed from circulation something that never should have been circulating in the first place. It's like a library refusing to renew a book when you go to renew it, as the book has been recalled. His lack of planning does not constitute legal grounds for a suit.

It's more like if the library staff snuck into my room to take back the book. Amazon didn't give any warning of their impeding action.

BroomJockey

08-01-2009, 02:46 AM

It's more like if the library staff snuck into my room to take back the book. Amazon didn't give any warning of their impeding action.

As it was the process of syncing the Kindle that did it (ie "checking in with the library,"), no, my analogy is accurate. It wasn't that Amazon forced a connection and deleted it.

Flyndaran

08-01-2009, 04:23 AM

As it was the process of syncing the Kindle that did it (ie "checking in with the library,"), no, my analogy is accurate. It wasn't that Amazon forced a connection and deleted it.

That makes it slighter better for Amazon. It still is a nasty attack on our privacy.

BroomJockey

08-01-2009, 04:36 AM

It still is a nasty attack on our privacy.

How? It has nothing to do with your privacy. It's an automated process to remove ebooks. No one digs through your Kindle to remove it, or connects to it without your permission to send a delete command. At absolutely no time does a person other than you do anything.

What this is, is a DRM issue. Not a privacy issue, not a theft issue. It's DRM, and Amazon putting too much faith in people to not break others' copyright.

Flyndaran

08-01-2009, 05:56 AM

...
What this is, is a DRM issue. Not a privacy issue, not a theft issue. It's DRM, and Amazon putting too much faith in people to not break others' copyright.

It means that it is fundamentally different and less yours than physical products. That alone means people will consider it less wrong to steal information. They should be making them similar enough to squash that reasoning.

Dreamstalker

08-10-2009, 02:08 PM

As it was the process of syncing the Kindle that did it (ie "checking in with the library,"), no, my analogy is accurate.
That still seems to me like 'no warning', especially if a sync would not normally do that (the user has no reason to think that something would be deleted).

IMO, Amazon is responsible in some fashion for deleting the student's notes.

violetyoshi

08-14-2009, 07:11 AM

Well whoever is responsible, it's extremely ironic it would be Orwell's books eh?

gremcint

09-09-2009, 08:06 AM

I fail to see what any of Amazon's actions has anything to do with copyright law, except for the one student. Amazon had the right to sell it, it was given to them by the publisher. The publisher then changed their mind and revoked the right to sell further copies and then demanded the other copies be destroyed. Right up until that last part noone did anything wrong. Even if you hold the copyright to something that means you determine who can copy it, not who can own it. When Mike Tyson's Punchout became Punchout Nintendo didn't hunt down everyone who bought it beforehand. They bought it, and the agreement they have while not being full ownership does guarantee them a permanent copy, and this is a contract.

To go with the physical object analogy if you take what I legally bought and give me money, unless there is a new contract or terms in the old contract allow to do this then the money really has nothing to do with it at all. You took my property without my permission (theft) then left a stack of money. I never signed an agreement of any kind that said I agreed to let you have it back in exchange for those funds so therefore you just randomly left money somewhere. I'm not going any further with the analogy because I am not a lawyer so I can't really carry it further. Though I must say refunding money directly onto a credit card is different from leaving it somewhere because you guarantee they get it and they know who it is from but even if they send a message about it they still didn't give you a chance to agree or not.

As for the student being stupid and not backing up his notes, well doesn't matter. Whether or not he had a backup doesn't matter, why he doesn't have a backup doesn't matter. Ask yourself what would happen if you had very valuable data on a harddrive, then I chose to do something to that drive without your permission that had the side effect of destroying your data, what would you do? well you'd probably make me pay for the recovery and then if not having that data for a while cost you money you'd probably have me pay for that too.

I never had any plans at buying a kindle anyways, I planned on a 9 inch laptop that I would turn into a combination: ebook reader, portable video player, telephone (skype), mp3 player and if they come with it: gps. I'm just waiting for money and for one of the companies making them to wiseup and put a touchscreen on one. There are apparently modkits you can buy but I have to wait until I have money anyways.