You know that "cash back" that credit card companies give you on each purchase? They're just giving you a cut of the money that they're wringing out of the merchant.
Right, like the only money the credit card companies make is on the merchant fees. I'm pretty sure some of that cash back I'm getting is from other card holders who are in debt and paying upwards of 18% interest rates.
It's not. Cash back rewards are almost always under 1.5%, and percentage cuts of transactions are almost always over 2%. Not to mention the transaction fees, bank fees, monthly service charge, etc. As has already been shown elsewhere, the credit card+bank typically takes at least 4% of credit card transactions in straight fees.
Their service agreements with the merchants require "no minimum purchase" and "no credit card fees". They have effectively colluded with the rest of the oligopoly to ensure all credit card companies have the same requirements. They then use the cash back "rewards" as a lure to convince customers to use their cards more often. Most consumers intentionally use their credit cards more often because it gives them a cash back reward. Merchants are forbidden from passing the costs on to the consumer in a direct, obvious way, so the consumers are unaware that they are actually costing themselves money by using credit cards.
Not to mention the fruit fly, which has a scoop-shaped penis. Its penis scoops sperm out of the female fly, so he can replace it with his own, thus increasing the odds that the babies will be his.
yes, i had it covered on the infinite amount of monkeys and infinite amount of typewriters, but i must have neglected to get the infinite amount of ink. at least they're not using computers with windows, because then they'd have an infinite number of BSOD
That's overkill - you only need one Windows ME CD for that.
The only time I ran COMPLETELY out of gas was when my gage was broke. But I've often ran low on gas when I was far from home. With a gas car, I just pull into a station and pump for 5 minutes. With an electric, where will I stay for the 8 hours it takes to charge the SOB?
Holy shit, at least RTFS (emphasis mine):
Recharge time is 8 hours with a 200-volt power source, and "just under 30 minutes with a quick charger" to charge to 80% of capacity.
For 30 minutes, might I recommend grabbing a newspaper or a book, and sipping a coffee at Denny's?
Since the power for these things only costs $1-2 or so, I can see a lot of restaurants and similar places using this as a lure.
You need to consider the relative energy contained in the shock wave versus the kinetic energy of the moving solid object. The solid object driving the shock wins every time... and by a massive margin. That's why it is driving the shock wave in the atmosphere.
Clearly you have not yet seen the elusive Martian Stork Feather Meteorite.
Because there is a HUGE difference between liquefying people and copying someone's game.
Right, one offense is a human rights violation by an authority figure, the other offense is a civil matter.
Now, back to the actual argument: there isn't THAT MUCH of a difference between wrongly imprisoning people for bullshit laws vs. wrongly imprisoning people for xenophobic reasons. If we were locking up Ecuadorians in prison just because of their race, many people would be upset. The fact that we're locking people up, for up to ten years, for altering hardware should have people up in arms.
My brother earns $11/hour. If he can survive on that amount of money, so too can the Harley workers. The fact they keep demanding $25/hour instead of negotiating a paycut to save their job is because they are being greedy.
And that greed's going to lead to the factory closing-down and moving. It simply doesn't pay to be stubborn.
The fact that they keep demanding their workers take a pay cut instead of simply accepting lower corporate profits is because they are greedy.
And that greed's gong to lead to the factory closing down and moving, very bad PR, and a loss of many skilled workers. It simply does yield slightly higher short-term corporate profits to fuck your workforce sideways.
I myself drive an old car, with many, many miles on it. It actually gets pretty good mileage (about 30mpg), but I'm sure it's considered dirty, because it's not OBDII.
To be fair, this program is for cars with less than 18mpg combined (City/highway averaging). Your car wouldn't be eligible, and rightly so.
This whole debate rather pisses me off, though. Bush spent what? >$800B on bailing out companies that didn't deserve it. The success of those programs is debatable, but billions have already been confirmed as wasted, squandered, and given out in executive compensation. Obama spent even more bailing out companies that didn't deserve it. Democrats then create a $1B program, the only program to help consumers, and it was an enormous success by all measurable metrics... and now everyone is bitching and criticizing that the govt is wasting money?
For the cost of the bailouts, we could have made massive gains against fossil fuel dependency, instituted a program one thousand times as large as CARS, rebuilt New Orleans four times, or replaced every corrupt congressman with an honest one.
he just doesn't get $3.5-4.5k from the feds for buying a foreign car.
I think you answered your own question:)
I suspect that the program isn't more geared towards getting people into econoboxes because Detroit doesn't make very many.
Funny you mention that... I tried desperately to find an American-made car that met my standards (reliable, 30mpg, $18k) and qualified under this program. Couldn't find one. Now I'm stuck between Toyota Matrix, Yaris, and Honda Fit. Possibly Scion xD.
The improvement I would make, in addition to the maximum of 17mpg tradein, I would mandate a minimum of 27mpg on the new vehicle - nearly 60% improvement. You could still buy an SUV at that level, if that's what you needed.
(D) that has the combined fuel economy value of at least- - (i) 22 miles per gallon for a passenger automobile; (ii) 18 miles per gallon for a category 1 truck; or (iii) 15 miles per gallon for a category 2 truck;
The law, then, stated that the trade-in must have a combined rating of 18 mpg or less and a car must get 22 mpg or more. 19 mpg would not qualify for a car, but would qualify for an SUV. Sad that they made that loophole for SUVs.
Of course, I do agree that I would have liked to see this requirement raised. I think 28 mpg or higher would be quite fair, or perhaps just make the reward on the lower mileage vehicles lesser.
So happens in Indiana we have a constitutional clause guaranteeing the right to a genuine jury trial, to wit: "the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts." A half-jury trial, where law is decided by the judge, and only facts are left to the jury, is an affront to a free man, and no Hoosier would stand for it.
But the facts aren't in question here. The defendant is guilty, as he'll tell you if you could ask him.
The law is the issue at stake here.
What part of "the jury shall have the right to determine the law" didn't you understand?
The defendant won't tell you that he is guilty. He'll tell you that he shared the song. You're either a really bad troll with a low UID, or not bothering to take the time to read critically.
In many ways, the idea that university researchers should be engaged in producing proprietary 'intellectual property' is counter to the academic tradition that such work depends on. Why should it be acceptable for someone to take generations of 'open access' research in physics, engineering, medicine, or whatever, add a little piece on top, and forbid anyone else from using it? I'm not saying it should never be done, but certainly not in a publicly funded university.
I think this gets taken to absurd levels with textbooks themselves. A professor, working and teaching for a university can privately write and copyright his own text, then, through his position as professor, require students taking his course to purchase his book?
In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton's response: "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen...."
Good fucking God, if that's isn't a telling comment about the liberal mentality: we can't give tax cuts to people because they may not spend THEIR money RIGHT.
And it's also quite revealing the media bias rampant in the US that that comment never got much play in the major media.
Yet Bill Clinton sure as shit said he was against tax cuts because taxpayers wouldn't spend their money "right".
What's the rest of the context? He went on to use social security as an example. What if he had cut social security taxes and allowed people to invest that money in private retirement accounts, like the conservatives wanted?
The current economic situation is precisely why social security was created. People DON'T spend their money "right" and many people don't treat other peoples' money right. Our government certainly isn't perfect or efficient, but without government performing those functions a lot of people would be on their asses. And not because they're lazy.
So how is this not evil? It looks like they are taking money from one near monopoly and using it in anti-competitive ways.
I'd say it looks like they're taking money from one near monopoly and using it in highly competitive ways. They're certainly not abusing their near monopoly.
Heh. The first car I owned had carburators, a distributor with mechanical points, and all that jazz. You don't know Old School until you've had to deal with a crudded up carb!
Try drum brakes that need to be adjusted every 3,000 miles... they just don't make them like they used to!
Do you have any sources you could share? I'd like to see the Secretary of the Air Force arguing against F-22 production, or any other top AF brass for that matter.
Your not risky the life of a pilot who can take hundreds of hours to train properly
A modern plane can do more than a pilot can physically handle so are better vehicles without a pilot
Don't require a full scale airport or carrier to land/launch from. Landing on an aircraft carrier is one of the most difficult tasks a pilot has to accomplish regularly. A drone can be launched from a small ship and who cares if it lands intact again.
Call me when you have a working drone that can shoot down an F-22. I'll help you find some buyers, primarily the USAF.
So this is a clear demonstration of which side the Judge is on, then?
The side with the money.
No, if the Judge was clearly on the RIAA's side, he would have ruled in their favor instead of saying "that's a bogus argument, produce the materials."
Not that I wouldn't prefer to have NYCL as the judge if the RIAA sued me...
Recently eHarmony has started advertising in the UK media (or, maybe, I've recently noticed...) Anyhow, I filled in their personality profile - as honestly as I could... though it would have been easier if I could have declined to answer the questions I considered ill-formed. Anyhow - the upshot was that the site told me not to join, since there'd be no-one compatible with me. I was amused - was this a rare emergence of honesty... or misunderstanding and prejudice, I wonder?
They told me the same, and my own anecdotal evidence confirms their assessment.
I think it's because of some of their prejudices, though. I'm an atheist. Many of their questions were about religion and spirituality... questions like "how important is it for your partner to have the same beliefs as you" I answered along the lines of "vital", but other questions about the importance of religion and faith I said "absolutely unimportant". As an atheist (and opponent of faith and spirituality in general), I had no idea how to answer any of those questions accurately.
No they should have just said American. That's what it presumably says on their passport unless they have dual nationality....
You do know that Israel grants all jews near immediate citizenship under the Law of Return, right?
and regardless of this it is utterly irrelevant for the story. Can you imagine the uproar had they said "white, male scientists"?
Can you imagine the uproar if it was an American-born scientist working in Paris and MSNBC had reported it as a "French scientist" making such a major discovery? Fox News would be immediately slamming them claiming him as an American. It's human nature... Israelis want to claim him just like Kenyans want to claim Obama, Germans want to claim Albert Einstein, and Americans want to claim everything.
Not only that but I would imagine that it is somewhat insulting to Americans - are they really that ashamed of being a US citizen that they have to somehow dilute it by mentioning where their family emmigrated from?
I disagree with your view of it, but I agree with the general notion. It's sad that so many Americans feel they have no cultural identity and feel such a need to latch on to other nationalities and ethnic groups. Conversely, nationality and ethnicity aren't mutually exclusive groups. I'll give a quick fictional (based on a true story) example to sum up the point:
My good friend identifies himself as a Korean-American. His parents met in Korea and emigrated to the US shortly before his mother became pregnant. He was born in the US, but when he was three years old his parents divorced and his mother returned to Korea. He grew up moving back and forth between the two parents, attended university in the US and was drafted into the Korean Army. Given that he still holds dual citizenship and identifies with both cultures, is he Korean, American, or Korean-American?
I would say that, for such an individual, Korean-American is the only accurate description of his nationality.
Well, that's pretty much Amazon's problem, now isn't it.
Look up First Sale Doctrine, but more importantly, Holder In Due Course. If you had no reason to believe the transaction was encumbered, then you're not liable for anything the seller did.
And a Reasonable Man wouldn't expect bad behaviour from Amazon...
Sadly, no mod points to mod this up. It's a shame how few people are familiar with some of the basic principles...
You're confusing trademark and copyright law. There's a ton of law around trademarks, and in many places customs agents can confiscate personal property that is obviously counterfeit.
Copyright wouldn't really apply the same way. In copyright infringement, the person infringing on the copyright is immediately liable/guilty, and the intermediaries may be liable/guilty if they should have known they were trafficking in pirated goods. Occasionally, in some jurisdictions, the recipient of the copied goods may be liable if they know they're engaging in illicit activity.
In this case, a reasonable person would have expected the copy to be legally produced (Amazon is an enormous, widely known bookseller and they have contracts with most publishers). If this was a physical product, they could not be compelled to return or exchange it by the party who sold it to them.
There are a lot of implications here, throughout copyright and contract law, but what it boils down to is that Amazon possibly infringed somebody's copyright, probably because they had a contract with someone else that told them they could sell/license copies. If that contract was wrong, there should be a legal dispute between Amazon, the other party, and the party that holds the copyrights.
In no way does this make the recipient liable for anything, unless the Kindle user goes about making additional copies that were outside of his contract with Amazon.
TL;DR: This could get interesting, but in no way, shape, or form does current law imply any responsibility on the part of Kindle owners.*
*Unless it does. If it does, I'll emigrate from the US.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks, I didn't know that!
Sorry for the slow reply, haven't had internet for a while.
Right, like the only money the credit card companies make is on the merchant fees. I'm pretty sure some of that cash back I'm getting is from other card holders who are in debt and paying upwards of 18% interest rates.
It's not. Cash back rewards are almost always under 1.5%, and percentage cuts of transactions are almost always over 2%. Not to mention the transaction fees, bank fees, monthly service charge, etc. As has already been shown elsewhere, the credit card+bank typically takes at least 4% of credit card transactions in straight fees.
Their service agreements with the merchants require "no minimum purchase" and "no credit card fees". They have effectively colluded with the rest of the oligopoly to ensure all credit card companies have the same requirements. They then use the cash back "rewards" as a lure to convince customers to use their cards more often. Most consumers intentionally use their credit cards more often because it gives them a cash back reward. Merchants are forbidden from passing the costs on to the consumer in a direct, obvious way, so the consumers are unaware that they are actually costing themselves money by using credit cards.
It's a giant, brilliant scam.
AND mix in sheep. Urk.
Dang, I read your "urk" as UK.
No, that's "NZ" in the kiwi alphabet.
Not to mention the fruit fly, which has a scoop-shaped penis. Its penis scoops sperm out of the female fly, so he can replace it with his own, thus increasing the odds that the babies will be his.
yes, i had it covered on the infinite amount of monkeys and infinite amount of typewriters, but i must have neglected to get the infinite amount of ink. at least they're not using computers with windows, because then they'd have an infinite number of BSOD
That's overkill - you only need one Windows ME CD for that.
The only time I ran COMPLETELY out of gas was when my gage was broke. But I've often ran low on gas when I was far from home. With a gas car, I just pull into a station and pump for 5 minutes. With an electric, where will I stay for the 8 hours it takes to charge the SOB?
Holy shit, at least RTFS (emphasis mine):
Recharge time is 8 hours with a 200-volt power source, and "just under 30 minutes with a quick charger" to charge to 80% of capacity.
For 30 minutes, might I recommend grabbing a newspaper or a book, and sipping a coffee at Denny's?
Since the power for these things only costs $1-2 or so, I can see a lot of restaurants and similar places using this as a lure.
You need to consider the relative energy contained in the shock wave versus the kinetic energy of the moving solid object. The solid object driving the shock wins every time... and by a massive margin. That's why it is driving the shock wave in the atmosphere.
Clearly you have not yet seen the elusive Martian Stork Feather Meteorite.
I accept your apology, sir.
Because there is a HUGE difference between liquefying people and copying someone's game.
Right, one offense is a human rights violation by an authority figure, the other offense is a civil matter.
Now, back to the actual argument: there isn't THAT MUCH of a difference between wrongly imprisoning people for bullshit laws vs. wrongly imprisoning people for xenophobic reasons. If we were locking up Ecuadorians in prison just because of their race, many people would be upset. The fact that we're locking people up, for up to ten years, for altering hardware should have people up in arms.
My brother earns $11/hour. If he can survive on that amount of money, so too can the Harley workers. The fact they keep demanding $25/hour instead of negotiating a paycut to save their job is because they are being greedy.
And that greed's going to lead to the factory closing-down and moving. It simply doesn't pay to be stubborn.
The fact that they keep demanding their workers take a pay cut instead of simply accepting lower corporate profits is because they are greedy.
And that greed's gong to lead to the factory closing down and moving, very bad PR, and a loss of many skilled workers. It simply does yield slightly higher short-term corporate profits to fuck your workforce sideways.
I myself drive an old car, with many, many miles on it. It actually gets pretty good mileage (about 30mpg), but I'm sure it's considered dirty, because it's not OBDII.
To be fair, this program is for cars with less than 18mpg combined (City/highway averaging). Your car wouldn't be eligible, and rightly so.
This whole debate rather pisses me off, though. Bush spent what? >$800B on bailing out companies that didn't deserve it. The success of those programs is debatable, but billions have already been confirmed as wasted, squandered, and given out in executive compensation. Obama spent even more bailing out companies that didn't deserve it. Democrats then create a $1B program, the only program to help consumers, and it was an enormous success by all measurable metrics... and now everyone is bitching and criticizing that the govt is wasting money?
For the cost of the bailouts, we could have made massive gains against fossil fuel dependency, instituted a program one thousand times as large as CARS, rebuilt New Orleans four times, or replaced every corrupt congressman with an honest one.
he just doesn't get $3.5-4.5k from the feds for buying a foreign car.
I think you answered your own question :)
I suspect that the program isn't more geared towards getting people into econoboxes because Detroit doesn't make very many.
Funny you mention that... I tried desperately to find an American-made car that met my standards (reliable, 30mpg, $18k) and qualified under this program. Couldn't find one. Now I'm stuck between Toyota Matrix, Yaris, and Honda Fit. Possibly Scion xD.
The improvement I would make, in addition to the maximum of 17mpg tradein, I would mandate a minimum of 27mpg on the new vehicle - nearly 60% improvement. You could still buy an SUV at that level, if that's what you needed.
From Consumer Assistance to Recycle and Save Act of 2009:
(D) that has the combined fuel economy value of at least-
-
(i) 22 miles per gallon for a passenger automobile;
(ii) 18 miles per gallon for a category 1 truck; or
(iii) 15 miles per gallon for a category 2 truck;
The law, then, stated that the trade-in must have a combined rating of 18 mpg or less and a car must get 22 mpg or more. 19 mpg would not qualify for a car, but would qualify for an SUV. Sad that they made that loophole for SUVs.
Of course, I do agree that I would have liked to see this requirement raised. I think 28 mpg or higher would be quite fair, or perhaps just make the reward on the lower mileage vehicles lesser.
Great post..... same thing is happening with health care... the right is trying to say there's no problem.. and has proposed no solution
Would rather they try to come up with their own real option... but I'm not sure they are capable of doing so
The right already has their solution.
Problem: Millions of uninsured Americans.
Solution: Pass a law requiring all Americans to buy insurance.
So happens in Indiana we have a constitutional clause guaranteeing the right to a genuine jury trial, to wit: "the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts." A half-jury trial, where law is decided by the judge, and only facts are left to the jury, is an affront to a free man, and no Hoosier would stand for it.
But the facts aren't in question here. The defendant is guilty, as he'll tell you if you could ask him.
The law is the issue at stake here.
What part of "the jury shall have the right to determine the law" didn't you understand?
The defendant won't tell you that he is guilty. He'll tell you that he shared the song. You're either a really bad troll with a low UID, or not bothering to take the time to read critically.
In many ways, the idea that university researchers should be engaged in producing proprietary 'intellectual property' is counter to the academic tradition that such work depends on. Why should it be acceptable for someone to take generations of 'open access' research in physics, engineering, medicine, or whatever, add a little piece on top, and forbid anyone else from using it? I'm not saying it should never be done, but certainly not in a publicly funded university.
I think this gets taken to absurd levels with textbooks themselves. A professor, working and teaching for a university can privately write and copyright his own text, then, through his position as professor, require students taking his course to purchase his book?
In a post-State of the Union speech in Buffalo, NY on January 20, 1999, Bill Clinton was asked why not a tax cut if we have a surplus. Clinton's response: ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. ..."
"We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But
Good fucking God, if that's isn't a telling comment about the liberal mentality: we can't give tax cuts to people because they may not spend THEIR money RIGHT.
And it's also quite revealing the media bias rampant in the US that that comment never got much play in the major media.
Yet Bill Clinton sure as shit said he was against tax cuts because taxpayers wouldn't spend their money "right".
What's the rest of the context? He went on to use social security as an example. What if he had cut social security taxes and allowed people to invest that money in private retirement accounts, like the conservatives wanted?
The current economic situation is precisely why social security was created. People DON'T spend their money "right" and many people don't treat other peoples' money right. Our government certainly isn't perfect or efficient, but without government performing those functions a lot of people would be on their asses. And not because they're lazy.
So how is this not evil? It looks like they are taking money from one near monopoly and using it in anti-competitive ways.
I'd say it looks like they're taking money from one near monopoly and using it in highly competitive ways. They're certainly not abusing their near monopoly.
Heh. The first car I owned had carburators, a distributor with mechanical points, and all that jazz. You don't know Old School until you've had to deal with a crudded up carb!
Try drum brakes that need to be adjusted every 3,000 miles... they just don't make them like they used to!
Do you have any sources you could share? I'd like to see the Secretary of the Air Force arguing against F-22 production, or any other top AF brass for that matter.
Not only that but,
Call me when you have a working drone that can shoot down an F-22. I'll help you find some buyers, primarily the USAF.
So this is a clear demonstration of which side the Judge is on, then?
The side with the money.
No, if the Judge was clearly on the RIAA's side, he would have ruled in their favor instead of saying "that's a bogus argument, produce the materials."
Not that I wouldn't prefer to have NYCL as the judge if the RIAA sued me...
Recently eHarmony has started advertising in the UK media (or, maybe, I've recently noticed...) Anyhow, I filled in their personality profile - as honestly as I could... though it would have been easier if I could have declined to answer the questions I considered ill-formed. Anyhow - the upshot was that the site told me not to join, since there'd be no-one compatible with me. I was amused - was this a rare emergence of honesty... or misunderstanding and prejudice, I wonder?
They told me the same, and my own anecdotal evidence confirms their assessment.
I think it's because of some of their prejudices, though. I'm an atheist. Many of their questions were about religion and spirituality... questions like "how important is it for your partner to have the same beliefs as you" I answered along the lines of "vital", but other questions about the importance of religion and faith I said "absolutely unimportant". As an atheist (and opponent of faith and spirituality in general), I had no idea how to answer any of those questions accurately.
No they should have just said American. That's what it presumably says on their passport unless they have dual nationality....
You do know that Israel grants all jews near immediate citizenship under the Law of Return, right?
and regardless of this it is utterly irrelevant for the story. Can you imagine the uproar had they said "white, male scientists"?
Can you imagine the uproar if it was an American-born scientist working in Paris and MSNBC had reported it as a "French scientist" making such a major discovery? Fox News would be immediately slamming them claiming him as an American. It's human nature... Israelis want to claim him just like Kenyans want to claim Obama, Germans want to claim Albert Einstein, and Americans want to claim everything.
Not only that but I would imagine that it is somewhat insulting to Americans - are they really that ashamed of being a US citizen that they have to somehow dilute it by mentioning where their family emmigrated from?
I disagree with your view of it, but I agree with the general notion. It's sad that so many Americans feel they have no cultural identity and feel such a need to latch on to other nationalities and ethnic groups. Conversely, nationality and ethnicity aren't mutually exclusive groups. I'll give a quick fictional (based on a true story) example to sum up the point:
My good friend identifies himself as a Korean-American. His parents met in Korea and emigrated to the US shortly before his mother became pregnant. He was born in the US, but when he was three years old his parents divorced and his mother returned to Korea. He grew up moving back and forth between the two parents, attended university in the US and was drafted into the Korean Army. Given that he still holds dual citizenship and identifies with both cultures, is he Korean, American, or Korean-American?
I would say that, for such an individual, Korean-American is the only accurate description of his nationality.
Well, that's pretty much Amazon's problem, now isn't it.
Look up First Sale Doctrine, but more importantly, Holder In Due Course. If you had no reason to believe the transaction was encumbered, then you're not liable for anything the seller did.
And a Reasonable Man wouldn't expect bad behaviour from Amazon...
Sadly, no mod points to mod this up. It's a shame how few people are familiar with some of the basic principles...
You're confusing trademark and copyright law. There's a ton of law around trademarks, and in many places customs agents can confiscate personal property that is obviously counterfeit.
Copyright wouldn't really apply the same way. In copyright infringement, the person infringing on the copyright is immediately liable/guilty, and the intermediaries may be liable/guilty if they should have known they were trafficking in pirated goods. Occasionally, in some jurisdictions, the recipient of the copied goods may be liable if they know they're engaging in illicit activity.
In this case, a reasonable person would have expected the copy to be legally produced (Amazon is an enormous, widely known bookseller and they have contracts with most publishers). If this was a physical product, they could not be compelled to return or exchange it by the party who sold it to them.
There are a lot of implications here, throughout copyright and contract law, but what it boils down to is that Amazon possibly infringed somebody's copyright, probably because they had a contract with someone else that told them they could sell/license copies. If that contract was wrong, there should be a legal dispute between Amazon, the other party, and the party that holds the copyrights.
In no way does this make the recipient liable for anything, unless the Kindle user goes about making additional copies that were outside of his contract with Amazon.
TL;DR: This could get interesting, but in no way, shape, or form does current law imply any responsibility on the part of Kindle owners.*
*Unless it does. If it does, I'll emigrate from the US.