[bigiain]

Maybe because it was Amazon's fault they sold the "illegal digital copy" in the first place? If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore - the bookstore would have had to deal with the problem to the legal rightsholders satisfaction _without_ taking the physical copies back from the customers who'd bought them (with the assumption that the bookseller was selling legal copies). Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different. It wasn't the _customers_ mistake that led to them purchasing an illegal copy, it was Amazon's mistake - they need to fix it. In my opinion sending a free ~$10 copy isn't a particularly onerous requirement for Amazon. If I were the original rightsholder I'd consider insisting that they do that - they led customers into believing they were getting a fully legal version for $0.99 - it's up to them to bvand any profits _or_ eat any losses associated with that transaction.

And I can't resist the opportinity to RT @Mike_FTW "Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes." ;-)

[pmichaud]

This is actually a reply to jemmons to whom I can't reply directly because it's nested too deeply.

--

I can't disagree with you more on more levels than I can count.

1) Argument from Basic Economics: When I made a good faith purchase of an electronic copy of 1984 from a trusted book retailer, I did so because I value that book MORE than I value $.99. When Amazon "bought back" the book, they did so at a price lower than I would have agreed to ($.99)...

2) Argument from Hooliganism: ...They were able to do this because they could force the transaction without me or any authority stopping them. Maybe I'm being dramatic, but I think that's called theft? Aren't those the basic facts of your average stick up?

3) Argument from Incentives: Especially with large organizations, laws are always tested. If there is a loop hole, it will be exploited. If the economic incentives for a big company are even a little out of line with the customers' or the public's interest, then customer and public will ALWAYS fall by the wayside.

That having been said, now that Amazon knows it can sell illegal files then just reverse the transaction later at no cost, they have full incentive to sell as many dubiously licensed books as they can in the hope that some rights-holders will not fight back.

By demanding they pay a penalty for this mistake, and especially for the subsequent mishandling of that mistake, we're ensuring that Amazon has sufficient incentive to stop this bad behavior. Right now, that have no such incentive.

3) Argument from a school boy: Enough of these economics, incentive, and hypothetical ethical concerns. In practical terms, it's possible that my high-school aged son could have had a copy of 1984 on his kindle for his AP English class. So here he is, reading the book, and he needs to write a paper about it. He tries to open it one day and it's gone. Just gone.

Now he has to spend additional time and money to reacquire the book he already bought, which has economic value. If he's lucky it won't actually affect his grade because he'll have had enough lead time to get it before any important deadline, but maybe he's out of allowance and I'm a mean parent who won't buy the book for him. Who will compensate him (more likely me) for his inconvenience and expense? Not Amazon, apparently, even though they caused it.

[jemmons]

1) You explicitly don't have the right to resell the electronic copy you licensed from Amazon. Therefore you do not get to set the price at which they "buy it back" (which is not what they're doing anyway. They're refunding you for a purchase. Big difference). You could argue that you want to have the right to resell, but Amazon is free to offer whatever products under whatever terms they like. If you find those terms distasteful, don't sign up. But once you do sign up, it's your fault and not Amazon's if you get burned by those terms (unless Amazon has misrepresented the terms. Which they have not).

2) You're not being dramatic, you're being inaccurate. They were able to do this because you explicitly gave them authorization to do so when you signed up. If I give my car to a friend, and he drives it somewhere without telling me, I cannot claim the car stolen.

3) What's the incentive here? How could Amazon in any way profit by putting a bunch of illegal books online, having people buy them, and then refunding people the money for them? Best case: They break even and have a lot of bad-will amongst publishers and customers alike. Worst case, they have all that and loose money due to credit transaction fees.

4) The book is not "just gone". Amazon notified the boy to let him know that the book had been removed and his account reimbursed. You can claim inconvenience at having to spend another minute downloading a legal copy of 1984. You cannot, in good conscience, claim that minute is equal to the value of shipping you a free $10 book. Just as a baseline: A person making a $100k/year is still only netting 20¢/minute before taxes. If Amazon decided to do such a thing, it would be well beyond "the least they could do".

[jemmons]

Maybe because it was Amazon's fault they sold the "illegal digital copy" in the first place

Granted. But what are you really out? For them to provide absolutely full remuneration to you, they'd have to pay you 99¢ (which they did. Immediately). At that point all your losses are covered. You can go and buy another 99¢ book or put that 99¢ towards a fair and legal copy of 1984.

But you ask for more. You seem to say that in addition to their error in selling an illegal book, Amazon's also offended your sensibilities in their handling of the situation. They've issued you a frank apology and promised to do better in the future, but that's still not enough for you. You want free stuff. I can't help but see this as greedy and overreaching.

If those customers had bought an "illegal physical copy" from a bookstore...

The customer could have kept the book or returned it to the bookstore for a refund. Not both. It's true that Amazon made the choice for you, forcing you to return the book for a refund (which was in bad taste and they've apologized).

But it should be pointed out that if these hypothetical people had decided to keep their book instead of returning it for a refund, the book would be no less illegal. They are still at this point guilty of possessing bootlegged material. The publisher could, in theory, still go after them in a court of law. So it can at least be said that, in choosing between these two alternatives, Amazon chose the legally unambiguous one. That may turn out to not have been the best choice, but it's certainly understandable, is it not?

Amazon _shouldn't_ have the right or mechanism to do any different.

You're saying they're not allowed to build the device they want or write the software they want? You're so filled with righteous indignation over Amazon's invasion of your perceived "rights" that you think they should send you free books. Yet you think nothing of oppressing their own freedoms. Self-contradictory at best and downright hypocritical at worst.

Now I'm afraid Jeff Bezos will come in the night and take my shoes.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[shiranaihito]

> That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

I wish people would refrain from saying this. Sure, it sounds so deliciously dismissive that it may be hard to resist, but really, it just can't be true.

FWIW, I agree with most of what you said though.