wtfpwnd!

I'd be pretty upset if that happened to me, but I don't think it's worth suing over.

Hopefully it doesn't get dismissed as frivolous and goes somewhere, because I have a feeling it'll end up pretty important in establishing consumer rights over digital content.

This is one of the few cases in which I believe a lawsuit is warranted. Amazon stepped well over the bounds of what is right and they should have to pay. Their bullshit apology will not make amends for their theft from their customers.

This is just another action that will push people away from purchasing digital products and into using P2P to get them for free.

well with this sort of publicity his teacher can't ignore the excuse haha

"We appreciate Amazon.com's new found contrition, but words are not enough," explained Jay Edelson, the lead attorney for the class action. "Amazon.com had no more right to hack into peoples Kindles than its customers have the right to hack into Amazons bank account to recover a mistaken overpayment."

Excellent.

I think that suing over losing some "electronic notes" is just another stupid lawsuit. However, I do agree that Amazon was out of line and needs to be rightfully punished.

GREED!!! Another case of people and lawyer trying to make quick big money. These students probably learnt from their parent; all these bad and evil personality are passing down to the next generation. Why would people even want to have kids if their can't teach them properly!!!

Milk 'em, milk 'em good.

You know Amazon has a great chance of losing this case if they don't settle it. Amazon's apology is a confession enough.

Wait, a lawsuit for people actually having rights to the media they purchase?! What a new concept! If this manages to go through, I hope this can act as some kind of precedent for future media-rights cases. Who'd have thought that the humble and yet overpriced Kindle had so much potential?

Doesn't anyone find it funny that it was Orwell's 1984 stored on a interconnected media system was deleted by "Big Brother"?

has no one read the terms of service for kindle? it states they can revoke access to books at any time.

why is everyone all of the sudden surprised that they're not really owners of anything but the physical hardware in these cases, and sometimes not even that. the majority of the time, you're merely licensing the products under agreement that they can change it at any time they wish, generally through updates. because people can't be bothered to read EULAs or follow them or believe that they don't have to adhere to agreements they blindly checked off on is a bit retarded...

if anything, people should be complaining about the validity of these End User Licensing Agreements and the extent to the control manufactures and software developers have on products after their "sale" to consumers...

the issue of "licensing" rather than "ownership" has been around for way longer than the kindle and ebooks... these challenges over which a consumer actually buys into should be where all the focus should be. trying to use the excuse that you didn't know that they could do things after the fact is too lame to take seriously...

This is why you get old fashioned books. They can't be mysteriously "deleted."

Man they could not have picked a more appropriate book to delete, 1984.

Talk about fate lol.

I hope amazon gets reamed in the courts over this. This is the 2nd time now they have done this(2nd book that ive heard of).

This is a VERY bad precedent to set, it needs to be nipped in the bud right NOW.

welcome to america....

Also, paper is a renewable resource. Silicon, yes, but not as easily done.

Amusing how the green people go all crazy about stuff that can grow back and not about how we are becoming more and more depend on (for the most part) nonrenewable resources, such as silicon.

Anyway, while the kid doesn't have any rightful argument due to his signing of their EULA what amazon did was still wrong. Though suing them isn't the best answer..

Make money at any cost....it's the American way.

The problem is that Amazon were removing content that had been illegally sold to american users... illegally, as in America the seller did not have the legal right to sell the product.
Therefore, the purchaser of the ebooks were "buying" essentially "stolen" products, and have no more right to the product than I would if I had bought a stolen car.
Additionally, as has been pointed out, you do not buy the ebook, but merely pay for a license to access the content of the ebook, and as such Amazon and the rights owners could remove anything they wanted as long as it was within the terms of the license agreement. An interesting point here is that a license was not sold to the ebook, as Amazon had no right to do that, and so no license agreement was in force, and as such the purchaser had not agreed that Amazon could remove that particular ebook (unless of course there was something extra in the Kindle EULA along the lines of "Amazon reserves the right to delete whatever we want").
The only reason this turned out to be a problem for Americans is that the copyright ownership laws in America are very much in favour of the producer... they have ownership for a LOT longer than over here in Europe (it's only 30 years in the UK). Personally I think 30 years is long enough to recoup enough income from the effort needed to produce something. Think of it this way, if a mechanic fixes a car, should he be expected to receive income from that for the next 100 years, or to put it another way, if a singer in 1940 had a single hit should they expect to keep getting an income on that recording even now even though they got paid reasonably for that single days recording ???

I happen to own over a thousand books and none of them are digital nor will they ever be.
i have a great collection of around 150-200 vintage 1930 - 1949 pulp magazines and have a gallery here you can see some.
http://www.bigmeathammer.com/gallery.htm
I also own around 600 - 800 vintage paperbacks.
And to top it off I own around 100 or so World War 2 books mostly 1st edition hardcovers.

I will never lose my books and if I do it will mean I have lost everything due to fire and then I have insurance.

I own an IPOD but you know something I HATE DIGITAL !!!
You will never get me to go out and buy digital books or movies or music.
I do own 100's of CD's and still own a nice collection of vinyl.

this lawsuit against amazon is a great idea.not for the money aspect but because when you buy something you don't go and delete it.and i wonder how you folks who are stupid enough to buy one of these will expect to read your library in 50 years or more.
my 1930's era books and pulpls are still readable and that makes them over 70 years old.no file formats in this home !!!!

and you are old and antiquated physical copies aren't the future digital "everything" is the future

how old are you like 60? seriously anyway born in the last 20 years knows that

Anyone born whenever that stops to think before putting foot in mouth realize that the concept of digital "everything" is fundamentally flawed.

Digital media is a great thing but it won't actually replace physical media as much as coexist with it.

Anyway, regarding EULAs. They are for the most part irrelevant since their terms more often that not violate consumer law, at least over here, and are thus considered null and void as far as legality is concerned.

You can't actually deny a consumer rights to purchased media just because the EULA says so. Consumer law very much trumps the EULA.

Hopefully that will also be the conclusion of the court, or this will end up a very black day for consumers of digital media.

yah yah good idea, instead of them suing us, let us SUE THEM!

This is why I store things on drives I have control over. Never leave something you need preserved in the possession of a vendor.

Companies that do this deserve to be crushed. I hope an example is made of them.

Amazon was probably right within there right removing content as most likely stated by there EULA etc

I'm guessing what they did was completely within their EULA, otherwise their lawyers wouldn't have let them do it regardless of the publisher's wishes. If they were not allowed to remove it, then Amazon would have been responsible financially to the publisher for any damages. This kid is retarded!

Also, what jack ass doesn't keep backups of any critical homework? I was doing it in the early 90's, nobody has any excuses these days.

maybe that's why I still buy my books on paper?

Even other online stores don't have that issues like for music and videos ... no one can delete'em.

I never liked the idea of the kindle. It's the only technological movement I rather do the old fashion way.

by the way i am 53 years old and have always loved to collect records,books,and movies.

i am a firm believer in digital not being the way of the future.you think it is the future huh !!!1
tell that to my employer as i work in a videostore as the office person.or tell that to all the local stores here in portland, maine who are already losing business to the faceless computer.this is costing local jobs and small businesses that go under cause they can't compete.

and tell that to the folks who lost their copies of 1984 or the folks who lost their DRM music that can't be "authorized".

when your devices no longer read the formats you support now i will still be reading my books and listening to my vinyl and loving it.

and by the way i also buy and sell collectible vinyl and/or rare books.

I love how faggots like these have found ways to turn the US legal system into a fucking joke.

This is why America (and even the rest of the world) is where it's at.

If amazon has the right to revoke access to a boke at anytime, they should, actually warn they the person will loose access, and allow them time to save their notes.

The student should sue the education system for failing to prepare him for the real world instead. There's a precedent I'd love to see.