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.

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.

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?