[MrMember]

When Amazon remotely deleted 1984 from people's Kindles a few years ago a student lost the digital notes he had been creating as he was reading it for a class. He ended up suing Amazon, but I have no idea if it was ever resolved or if it's still ongoing.

[dtparr]

Amazon settled fairly quickly: http://arstechnica.com/business/2009/10/amazon-stipulates-te...

The most interesting/relevant bit from the article "In it, Amazon's attorneys agreed to legally binding terms that describe its content deletion policy. When it comes to blog and periodical content, as well as software, Amazon retains the right to perform a remote delete. But when it comes to books, deletions will only occur under a limited number of circumstances: failed credit card transactions, judicial orders, malware, or the permission of the user."

[tomerv]

Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but it looks to me like Amazon does not hold the right to delete books in the case of a ToS abuse, which means that they shouldn't have deleted the books in this case.

[lambada]

IIRC that case was based entirely in the US. As somehow Amazon UK seem to be involved in this case too, it's possible that those agreements don't apply to this case.

[dtparr]

I would have thought the same. Perhaps the 'Amazon' that is bound under this settlement is a different corporate entity as the 'Amazon' in this case. E.g. Amazon.com vs. Amazon.co.uk

[rmc]

As a tangent, I hate how trademark law protects the "Amazon" brand for book sellers, but there are 2 different companies. I think that if the company wants to keep a trademark, then any company that uses/is licenced that trademark is legally counted as the same company. This way Joe Soap, upon seeing the "Amazon" trademark, is not able to screwed around by corporate structure shenanigans. Or Amazon Ltd. have the choice of giving up the trademark.

[stickfigure]

I doubt that would matter in this case. Different laws apply to different jurisdictions. The fact that Amazon US and Amazon UK are two different companies is a red herring; a purchase in one jurisdiction may entail different rights than a purchase in other jurisdictions, even from the same company.