On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:03:11 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch
<erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 09:40:12 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
>
>> So Amazon basically made the worst possible call in terms of customer
>> service. It wasn't the customer's fault that the books were not
>> legal, and if they had been physical books it would have been
>> impossible to retrieve them.
>
> It may not be impossible to retrieve them. For instance, if the
> customer paid for the book with a credit card or paypal or any other
> kind of electronic payment (which is the only way to buy anything from
> Amazon anyways), the customer could be sued by the rights holder to
> turn over his copy, resulting in a possible judgement if they failed
> to do so, which would go on their credit report.
So I should be afraid when I buy a book that it may be illegal and later
on down the road I will be sued for actions I had no control over? That
seems like rather a stretch.
I think you are mistaken. The customer did not violate the copyright,
the seller did. Any remedies would necessarily be against the seller.
More to the point...has this EVER happened as you describe?
> There's a hell of a lot worse things that *could* have happened than
> getting your money refunded and the book automatically deleted.
Yes, well, a comet could have hit the earth right after the people
bought the books. That's about as likely as your scenario.
>> The only remedy would have been to stop selling the books. Which is
>> what anybody with any sense would have done in this case. Instead they
>> decided to demonstrate the "gotcha" built into their product for all to
>> see.
>
> They did stop selling the books, at least in the US. Why do you think
> they didn't? And i've already explained why it's not the only
> rememdy.
Are you really that obtuse? Did I say they kept selling the books? No,
I did not. That would be a stupid claim. But they _also_ took other
action that I think was particularly stupid on their part.
Whether or not your silly arguments about pursuing the buyers of the
books holds any water, it is still the case that Amazon made a really
boneheaded move.
They conclusively demonstrated for all to see that DRM is anti-consumer.
>> Or, if you care about your rights, maybe it was good that they held
>> this little demonstration.
>
> Your rights? You don't have rights to retain a copy that was
> illegally distributed. The copy is illegal, and being in posession of
> it, while a mitigating circumstance, doesn't give you any right to
> have that copy.
The illegal act was the distributing of the copy. The remedy is against
the person who made and/or distributed the illegal copy, not the person
who received it. It is unreasonable for a rights holder to expect to be
able to identify, much less contact and receive the book back from,
every individual who bought it.
Your great love for DRM-encumbered products and outrageous actions by
rights holders is duly noted. Perhaps you should go work for the RIAA.
--
-| Bob Hauck (Brother Nail Gun of The Short Path)
-| http://www.haucks.org/
|
|
