Student Suing Amazon For Book Deletions

Stupified writes "High school student Justin Gawronski is suing Amazon for deleting his Kindle copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four (complaint, PDF), because doing so destroyed the annotations he'd created to the text for class. The complaint states: 'The notes are still accessible on the Kindle 2 device in a file separate from the deleted book, but are of no value. For example, a note such as "remember this paragraph for your thesis" is useless if it does not actually reference a specific paragraph.' The suit, which is seeking class action status, asks that Amazon be legally blocked from improperly accessing users' Kindles in the future and punitive damages for those affected by the deletion. Nothing in Amazon's EULA or US copyright law gives them permission to delete books off your Kindle, so this sounds like a plausible suit."

Comments

Derivative work

[langelgjm]

Given the other absurdities of copyright law, and how the RIAA's lawyer think that disappearing purchases are normal in every area of life, I wouldn't be surprised to see a lawyer claim that the annotations are in fact a derivative work of the book, and that since Amazon had no right to sell the book, then the student had no right to create the annotations.

Also, there's probably some boilerplate legal language included with the Kindle that says they are not responsible for data loss, etc., or if it kills your grandmother or dog.

Re:1984

[sys.stdout.write]

I grew up in a conservative rural area, maybe it's different elsewhere.

This was the kind of place where the parents got mad when teachers had grade schoolers read Harry Potter.

Re:Hrrm

[DoofusOfDeath]

The company that sold it didn't have the rights to it in the US. The legal publisher complained and Amazon pulled the book.

Yes, but Amazon's solution to the "books" already sold may have been illegal.

For example, if they had sold a paper copy of 1984 illegally, they aren't allowed to burn down the house of anyone who purchased it. Certain actions remain illegal, despite the fact that they're address the copyright issue.

Isn't an apology enough?

[neonprimetime]

per the /. story i read 4 days ago

Re:This is really freakin' cool

[nine-times]

Perhaps it could set a precedent against deleting data from users' devices in general.

Or perhaps it could set a precedent which cements Amazon's legal right to do these things. I would certainly hope not, but it's possible. The government hasn't exactly been pro-consumer during the past few decades.

Re:It's time for the Minute of Hate

[morgan_greywolf]

Except that our world is sliding closer and closer to a Brave New World than into 1984

Six of one, half dozen of the other. This is the best explanation I've ever seen comparing and contrasting BNW and 1984:

What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism. Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumblepuppy. As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny "failed to take into account man's almost infinite appetite for distractions." In 1984, Orwell added, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that what we desire will ruin us.

Re:1984

[Omniscient Lurker]

Bible-Belter here. 1984 was a required book in AP Lit.

Of course a parent did get mad when a lower grade (10th) read Dante's Inferno (near the end of the year). Then my teacher had to get permission for The Things They Carried---strangely being over 18 didn't mean you didn't have to get permission. Which then pissed off my parents and the parents of everyone else.

Re:A fool and his money...

[Chelloveck]

We are dealing with a high school kid who owns a kindle and was using it for school. While it is possible that kid actually earned the $500 to buy it himself, I'm probably not alone in finding that unlikely.

Why is that unlikely? High school kids have been known to have jobs, after all. I myself earned the $1500 necessary to buy an Apple //e system my senior year in high school, some 25 years ago. I had friends who bought cars. Cheap, worn-out cars, to be sure, but they still ran.

But either way, it doesn't matter. The Kindle is his, and contained his own work. He believes that Amazon willfully destroyed that work, and he's willing make an effort to get recompensed. Good for him! He's probably tilting at windmills, of course, but I applaud his effort.

Would a kid really care enough to do so? Why not? One of my classmates ran for mayor during his senior year. Not as a joke, either. It was a sincere attempt to fix problems he saw in the town and he put a lot of effort into it. He lost, but it was a credible campaign. I have no problem at all believing that a high school kid would feel wronged by Amazon and would make the effort to seek justice.

Hacking laws

[TiggertheMad]

Hacking laws on the books make it illegal to add, modify, or delete data on another person's computer without their consent. I believe it carries a pretty stiff sentence too, because it is a federal statute. I am pretty sure that Amazon has no consent from anyone when they used their DRM to kill the book, so they could be in some deep water.

Also, since it was an an actual person that punched the enter key when it came time to revoke the DRM license, I wonder if they could be hit with the criminal hacking charge. The fact that invoking DRM controls could land you in the federal pen for 20 years might be a great way get corps to knock that shit off.

Re:One word

[gEvil (beta)]

If this was anything except 1984, this wouldn't have been news at all.

Bullshit.

Then how come it wasn't news when the exact same thing happened with several Ayn Rand books a month earlier?

Re:1984

[digitig]

I disagree almost completely. It sounds like you're urging a bureaucratic solution whereby there's no direct contact between teachers and parents.

Not "no contact", but I don't think a local group of parents should be able to set the syllabus. Here in the UK the syllabus is set nationally, and although I do have reservations about the amount the government dictates *how* the syllabus is taught, I think it's a good thing we have a national syllabus.

If you're talking about reading over and above the syllabus, back in the 1960s I was given a very extensive recommended reading list (1984 was on it) and my parents decided which of the books I could read (they didn't place any restrictions on it, because my teachers were perfectly aware of what was appropriate for my age). A couple of years ago my daughter was given a very extensive recommended reading list (1984 was on it) and I decided which of the books she could read (I didn't place any restrictions on it, because her teachers were perfectly aware of what was appropriate for her age). In neither case did the teachers ask or need permission from the parents to recommend the books.

Re:Recovery (Off Topic)

[moeinvt]

Sorry, couldn't resist that bait.

None of the basic premises of capitalism has been proven faulty or unworkable by the economic realities over the last couple of years. If anything, insane monetary policy, reckless spending and the blatant corruption of regulatory bodies has demonstrated the utter failure of big central government as an institution. Perhaps your definition varies, but I don't consider "hiring people to lobby the government for favors" to be a valid business model in a capitalistic system. Capitalism is based on the means of genuine production, not money printing, paper shuffling, government spending and a system of bailouts to a select few. Suppose that we broaden the definition of capitalism to include activities like fractional reserve banking, stock trading and real estate specualtion. Even though nothing is being produced by "capital", businesses that make bad decisions fail, go bankrupt, and get replaced by smarter healthier businesses. I don't know what you call an economic system based on government stealing money from its citizens and using it for bailouts of a politically well connected elite, but it certainly is NOT "capitalism".