Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Pulls Purchased E-Book Copies of 1984 and Animal Farm
Oracle Goddess writes "In a story just dripping with irony, Amazon Kindle owners awoke this morning to discover that 1984 and Animal Farm had mysteriously disappeared from their e-book readers. These were books that they had bought and paid for, and thought they owned. Apparently the publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic edition, and apparently Amazon, whose business lives and dies by publisher happiness, caved. It electronically deleted all books by George Orwell from people's Kindles and credited their accounts for the price. Amazon customer service may or may not have responded to queries by stating, 'We've always been at war with Eastasia.'"
Who would buy a book from a publisher and sales person who think it's okay to sell you DRM crap and then take it away on a whim when you can get those exact same books legally, and for free?
Animal Farm: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100011.txt
1984: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
when you can get those exact same books legally
That's great if you're kicking it in the Outback or somewhere else sane, but here in the States 1984 it is still under copyright (I assume using the simple heuristic that it was created after Steam Boat Willie) and so probably not actually legal.
The enemies of Democracy are
For "$DEITY" sake, don't use, buy or recommend to anyone the Kindle!
It was designed from day one to be enable Amazon to fuck you and this is exactly what happened. I'm not surprised.
An alternative ereader with better hardware, open architecture and NOT defective by design is the iLiad by iRex. Yes, it runs Linux and you can install third-part programs. And, yes, it costs a little more, but if you value your freedom (and your books) it's more than worth it.
Disclaimer: I don't work for iRex, I'm only an happy customer.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
Except it's NOT in the license. Quoted here in case it mysteriously changes:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530&#content
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Give Killer Klowns From Outer Space a watch some time.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Instead coming to get me, wget http://www.planetebook.com/1984.asp and http://www.asiaing.com/animal-farm-by-george-orwell.html I'm no legal expert (I gave up on trying to understand the law), but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired (well, I think they have anyway). Even if they weren't if Amazon and publishers will do things like this, then they deserve all the piracy they wget! --- Mod this one up, rather than either of my two comments.
Excuse for why is your room always messy?
Somebody mod this bozo down, and quick! He gets several issues very wrong here. First, the company did have the legal right to sell the Orwell works. However, they chose to stop selling ebooks through Amazon. For whatever reason, Amazon caved into their request that all copies be pulled. Second, you are allowed to sell versions of Public Domain works, much in the same way you are allowed to sell copies of open source software. There's nothing inherently illegal about that.
Only 9% of the wood used to make books comes from old growth forests ( http://ecology.com/features/paperchase/ ), so there is some merit to his theory.
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
If you had no reason to believe the transaction was encumbered, then you're not liable for anything the seller did.
If you had no reason to believe the goods were stolen, you won't wind up in jail either, but you'll still have to give the goods back. The legitimate holder's rights come first. This principle is particularly important when it comes to copyright, because otherwise a single infringing copier could effectively negate an entire copyright, while not having anything close to the resources to fairly compensate the legitimate copyright holder for the resulting damage.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
I think Amazon did the right thing and according to their official response:
Amazon Kindle Customer Service says:
"These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books. When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers. We are changing our systems so that in the future, books will not be removed from customers' devices in these circumstances."
but these novels are impiratable since their copyright has expired
Hmm....
George Orwell died in 1950. (link), and 1984 was published in 1949.
The copyright law in effect in the US in 1949 allowed for a 28 "first" term, with a possible 28 year extension. (link).
The law was changed in 1976, allowing any published work still in its first-term to be extended another 67 years. Since 1949 + 28 = 1977, Orwell's work was still in its first term, and would not have expired under the original law until 2005 -- or 2053 under the 1976 extension.
AND, the 1998 Sony Bono copyrgiht extension slapped a flat "life + 75 years" deal, which is kinda a moot point but would still push copyright unil at least 2024.
ANNND, any signficiant edits work of 1984 would have created a new derivitive work, with a whole new copyright.
Or in other words--1984 is probably still well covered by copyright, and not technically in the public domain in the United States.
(Yes, you can find a copy on the internet. This is the internet, where you can also find anything and everything for free if you look hard enough.)
(And, yes, I know Orwell was from the UK. I don't know the UK laws, I don't have a good guide for the UK laws, and as far as I know copyright law on the other side of the pond is still a grant given by the king to a publisher so that a particular work gets published.... so 1984 might never get into the public domain at all.)
(Not to mention that if it's not in there now, the "Mickey Mouse" effect might keep it from ever getting there.)
so therefore the copyright extension is not retroactive to them
Go read the law linked to by the copyright office. The relevant section is below. Short form: 1984 got a second extension of 67 years, instead of 28. So instead of expiring back in 2005, it's expiring circa 2039
(a) Copyrights in Their First Term on January 1, 1978. â"
(1)
(A) Any copyright, in the first term of which is subsisting on January 1, 1978, shall endure for 28 years from the date it was originally secured.
(B) In the case of â"
(i) any posthumous work or of any periodical, cyclopedic, or other composite work upon which the copyright was originally secured by the proprietor thereof, or
(ii) any work copyrighted by a corporate body (otherwise than as assignee or licensee of the individual author) or by an employer for whom such work is made for hire,
the proprietor of such copyright shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for the further term of 67 years.
(C) In the case of any other copyrighted work, including a contribution by an individual author to a periodical or to a cyclopedic or other composite work â"
(i) the author of such work, if the author is still living,
(ii) the widow, widower, or children of the author, if the author is not living,
(iii) the author's executors, if such author, widow, widower, or children are not living, or
(iv) the author's next of kin, in the absence of a will of the author, shall be entitled to a renewal and extension of the copyright in such work for a further term of 67 years.