« How Semantic Tools Fail Us | Main | Nokia: The General Motors Of Phones? »

July 19, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c50ba53ef0115721872b2970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Kindle License Agreement, Annotated:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dekindling. I like it.

The irony of 1984 being the test subject to demonstrate Amazon's control over your device has a certain Ouroboros elegance.
However, more frightening than the deletion and the subsequent 'explanation', is the very real possibility of updates and changes to materials that you are renting, such as textual changes that may be made at their discretion without either your permission, consent or being informed.


The majority of the agreement is boilerplate, with the usual weasleling of using their arbitration, software rental, and no liability for any act on their part.

Ya need to set up a website where folks can send their kindles to be boxed up and shipped back to Amazon.

Actually, it's completely likely that a court will enforce the right-to-modify clause. That's part of what you agree to when you accept the terms of the license: that the agreement can be amended at any time. This sort of thing is almost always enforceable.

As for the "settlement," well, you can't bring a class action suit in arbitration, and the Kindle EULA requires arbitration ("ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING IN ANYWAY TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO CONFIDENTIAL ARBITRATION IN SEATTLE").

Here's a good summary of these issues: http://blogs.geniocity.com/friedman/2009/07/amazon-eulas-and-orwells-memory-hole/

So there's probably not a whole lot anyone can do. The license protects Amazon very well. But I think the PR problem will have some effect -- despite the lack of legal recourse.

Marciw

I don't buy it. The nature of what they did is unlikely to be considered to be within bounds. For example, they couldn't press a button somewhere that listens to what is being said near the Kindle, and claim it is just changing the terms. There is a reasonableness associated with the buying 'permanent copies' of the works. And at any rate that should cover their ability to delete peoples annotations.

Stowe - as I wrote (on the post Marciw links to), I agree with you that Amazon is in breach (because of the agreement the licensee gets a "permanent" copy), but whether there is a breach or not (and another legal wrong regarding the annotations, notes, etc.) is really irrelevant given that there's a mandatory arbitration provision and there's no class action available in arbitration.

What are you going to do -- hire a Seattle lawyer (arbitration must be in Seattle) and pay the cost of arbitration for the few bucks in damages you could at best (and not very likely at that) get? Even if you could get statutory damages for copyright infringement, it wouldn't be worth it.

These arbitration provisions (not to mention the provisions providing a unilateral right to amend without notice) are noxious. Unfortunately, no court has seen fit to knock down the arbitration provisions. I'm not sure whether the unilateral amendment provisions have ever been genuinely tested.

Maybe there is hope after all - in Harris v. Blockbuster (http://www.karlbayer.com/blog/?p=2151) the court refused to enforce an arbitration provision precisely because the contract provided a unilateral right to amend. I've got to research this point more, but it seems on its face to be consistent with Texas law. I see reason, though, to think it wouldn't be under the law of many states. The court says the agreement to arbitrate is "illusory" because it can be amended without notice. I would think that in most states the un-amended contract would be enforceable and terms that were added by amendment MIGHT be deemed illusory.

Stowe, I hope you're right. But how is it going to be declared reasonable or unreasonable if nobody can sue? All disputes have to be settled by arbitration, and there's no way to bring a class action in arbitration -- each user who had the book deleted would have to go through arbitration individually (in Seattle!), which seems highly unlikely. So without the option to file a class action lawsuit, how will the question even be asked?

It just seems to me that whether Amazon was actually allowed to dekindle the books or not, the license agreement will "protect them from their misdeeds" very well by ensuring that no collective legal action can be taken.

Marciw - What I am saying is that just because a user has an agreement with Amazon that governs the use of the device, Amazon is not free to break other established laws. People in the US cannot sign away all other rights in contracts.

The EULA above discusses that you own a license to a book, but is this license agreement for the individual books available?

Ed - I don't think there is an individual agreement for each book. When you 'purchase' an e-book, you are granted the license as defined in the EULA.

So How does the term "legally" aquire come into play? There is no legal purchase here. The "sales" here were not legal because Amazon didn't have the right to publish or license the material. So how does the end user have the legal right to the content? Question number two is about the circumstances preceeding removal... was there some enforcement of the actual owners copy write in the removal? IE was Amazon forced to remove the content by a legally binding settlement or judges decision related to the illegal publication/distribution? So did they even have a choice?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.