Comments on: Amazon sparks digital ownership debate http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/07/20/amazon-sparks-digital-ownership-debate/ Where media and technology meet Wed, 16 Nov 2016 08:48:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: Holmes Wilson http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/07/20/amazon-sparks-digital-ownership-debate/#comment-362388 Wed, 05 Aug 2009 16:04:03 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=18238#comment-362388 Re: In response to Amazon’s remote deletion of 1984 and Animal FarmHi there,Saw you’d written about the Amazon / 1984 flap, and I thought you might beinterested in the petition we launched yesterday:http://defectivebydesign.org/a mazon1984We have over 1400 signatures already, and signers include Lawrence Lessig,Clay Shirky, Cory Doctorow and other notable authors, librarians, andscholars.The petition opens:”We believe in a way of life based on the free exchange of ideas, in whichbooks have and will continue to play a central role. Devices like Amazon’sare trying to determine how people will interact with books, but Amazon’suse of DRM to control and monitor users and their books constitutes a clearthreat to the free exchange of ideas.”Please have a look, and if you support the cause or think it would beinteresting to your readers, a blog post would be great!Thanks,-Holmes WilsonFree Software Foundation

]]>
By: Pete Cann http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/07/20/amazon-sparks-digital-ownership-debate/#comment-361812 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:15:34 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=18238#comment-361812 Ian, excellent point, but since Amazon was presumably at fault and the cost to them was trivial, the refund should be (and I hope and assume was) 100%.I’ve tried to deal with Amazon myself. At that time, their support had been outsourced to India, and the many people who “helped” me prior to escalation were absurd clowns. Realizing that I might have to deal with a security problem like the stolen credit card you mention gives me chills.Arman, I think you wandered off the mark. It’s a question of whether you’re required to return your own, honestly acquired but illicit copy of a paper book. In Canada recently, people were ordered not to read Harry Potter books that they had bought honestly but were illicit. In our culture, I would hope that a court would order the publisher, or other supplier customarily expected to avoid copyright violations, to refund at least 100% to the end user. A greater amount would be perfectly reasonable, because it would have been a pain in the neck to the customer.

]]>
By: Arman Barsamian http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/07/20/amazon-sparks-digital-ownership-debate/#comment-361807 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:33:31 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=18238#comment-361807 A print copy is also similar to an electronic copy, in that both are limited grants of license. In both cases, you are purchasing a license to read or otherwise enjoy the literature. In neither case are you granted a full and unlimited license nor assigned the copyright.Buying a book at a store involves paper and dried ink. The paper and ink I would concede is genuinely owned by the retail consumer. But what is the nominal value of that, physical material? (Perhaps $3.00 for a long book)The rest of the purchase price and indeed almost all of the profit lies in the granting of a license to read an work. Physically, that grant always transfers with the book itself, so there aren’t huge piracy issues, however…Purchasing a print of the book at your local bookstore does not entitle one to run as many photocopies or professional re-prints of the books to then sell for profit.This is obviously much harder to maintain in electronic settings since the physical material no longer guarantees to control the intangible grant of right.

]]>
By: Ian Kemmish http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/07/20/amazon-sparks-digital-ownership-debate/#comment-361806 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:32:49 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=18238#comment-361806 “Melissa J. Perenson of PC World asks if you can still call it “owning”:”Well, as far as I can remember, throughout human history, if you’ve bought stolen goods, you’ve never owned them. Whether they were an e-book, a paper book, a cow, or Brooklyn Bridge. Nothing has changed in that respect.Presumably the argument is about whose responsibility it is to reimburse the real owner. Those in receipt of the stolen goods clearly think the failure of due diligence is all on Amazon’s side; Amazon clearly think it’s all on the customers’ side. As someone who has never used Amazon since I discovered how hard it is to report stolen credit cards to them (and never will), I’d say the failure is probably 50/50, and the costs should be borne in the same proportion.

]]>
By: Thomas Kenny http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/2009/07/20/amazon-sparks-digital-ownership-debate/#comment-361802 Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:56:57 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/mediafile/?p=18238#comment-361802 It would seem that the customer’s only recourse is to make a print copy. This the customer owns and very likely, is subject to different laws. Cf. Tusiani versus N.Y. Times??

]]>