| 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. |
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 20ยข/minute before taxes. If Amazon decided to do such a thing, it would be well beyond "the least they could do".