OK...Amazon goofed and owned up to it and has rectified their mistake prior to this.

I have a huge problem with them being forced to pay out $150K (charitable or not) because some kid didn't take precautions to back himself up.

Despite its capabilities, Kindle is still an electronic device, and is therefore unreliable for important work like this. The justice system has once again awarded stupidity and a lack of willingness to take personal responsibility...period.

The money goes to charity (AFTER the scum lawyers who took this case line their own pockets with the new jacuzzi they've been eyeballing first).

Ridiculous.

As in Animal Farm, some lawsuits are more equal than others.

The kid and his parents should be thrown in jail for a frivolous lawsuit! What's next? Sue the dog because he ate your kids homework??

FlickDude: You totally miss the point! This has nothing to do with what was lost, it was all about how it was lost. (You obviously don't have the intelligence of a lawyer or you wouldn't be attacking those who earn it.)

This is about an invasion of privacy, or even an attack by a "virus", depending on how his lawyers proceeded with their case.

It comes down to he had reasonable expectations that even if the book was removed, his work on the device would remain untouched. That was his work that he had put together, quoting the book. Amazon had no legal right to touch his work.

Privacy isn't just about viewing, it's about taking (deleting) as well. They could have said it was the work of a virus (malicious software, intentional or not, destroying his files).

It's one thing to delete a book. It's another to use software to go in and delete any reference to the book, even in files created by the owner of the Kindle.

It would be like going in to delete illegally downloaded software, but then going in and deleting anything in any file that even mentions the words contained in those illegally downloaded items.

Not only is that screwed up, but he purchased the book when he downloaded it, and they still went through his personal files deleting all references.

Don't comment or criticize in ignorance. You only make yourself look foolish to those who know, who understand, and who don't want some company rummaging through and deleting things from their personal files! There is no excuse for such an invasion! (Accidents you pay for, intentional you go to jail for.)

KC: Wow! You're just as smart and understanding as FlickDude. Congrats on your lack of knowledge!

@dshell102: "...intelligence of a lawyer..." Isn't that an oxymoron?

LOL!!! What's really entertaining is people who read the headlines instead of the article, or they get their understanding of the article from the headlines instead of the article and what it really represents.

ATTENTION STUPID PEOPLE: The case had nothing to do with a kid losing his homework, yet had everything to do with someone going into his files illegally and removing all references to the file they intended to remove.
(sorry everyone, I'm trying to simplify a matter of computer invasion for the whiners who don't understand anything past the extremely simplified headlines that don't even talk about what the real issue is)

Joe Mama: They do what you can't, and make more money than you.
Call it an oxymoron if you want, they just take out the "oxy" part when refering to people who criticize that about which they are ignorant.

i own over a thousand books and all paper.lots of 1st edition rarities in scifi and world war 2 books.
i would never buy one of these ebook readers and i will never support an industry like ebooks.

to each his own but i am glad to read my nice cool war books with great deatailed images/maps and they are all easy to read and i own them all.i can resell them for more than their original price or trade them for other 1st editions.
i say no way to DRM and no way to ebooks replacing paper made books.

dshell, How dare you take a jab at my intelligence when my point is an opinion that is clear, concise, and surely not ill-informed

Regardless of Amazon's failings in this issue (which they have certainly atoned for) my point in my comment was to bring to light the students failings in maintaining a better backup plan for his work. Whether invasion or accident, one is EXTREMELY foolish to put all their eggs into one electronic basket...and I have a problem with rewarding this much money for that kind of failure.

I own a Kindle, and I am VERY aware that the current model for their business on the machine leaves me to purchase a license to read the book, but it's hazy in regard to "ownership" of said books. Yes...Amazon did NOT handle the mistake well, but this kind of settlement is preposterous, in my opinion.

I enjoy a healthy and intelligent debate. I am thankful for it and welcome you to agree or disagree, but please don't dare take a shot at my intelligence because you do not agree.

Please, speak your point and move on, without personal attacks, thanks.

I was about to buy a Kindle before this happened. I won't buy one now. If Amazon can take the book back from me after I buy it without my consent, it isn't a technology I want anything to do with.

Flickdude,
Your comment ignores the cause of the problem entirely. The irony is, he had a lawsuit even if he did have a backup, because again, it's not about lost data, it's about an invasion of his personal file. It's about data theft.
"Backup" seemed like a weak attack on the guy who won and ignores the merit of the case entirely, leading to ignorant comments like the one from KC.
Sorry, but KC proved my point, whether it was based on your comment or not.
You do have a good point that we should all make backups, but that comment is as misleading as the headline when it comes to discussing the actual merits of the case.

And people who discuss the headlines instead of the actual merits bother me as much as comments about your intellect bother you.

Also, lawsuits have long been a way to force companies and businesses into more fair business practices. The 150K is a costly lesson to Amazon, and not much more.

I'm not sure where I give the impression that I did not read the article beyond the headline, but I'm also unsure if that comment is meant for me or KC.

What has me red hot about this issue is that $150,000 is being spent on this by Amazon, after they have already well atoned for this major faux pas.

I am not ignoring their mistake at all...they did indeed blow it in how they managed the Orwell Botch. The Public Relations disaster it spelled for the company has taken a tremendous toll on their bottom line.

What I am fired up about is that they continue to pay for this error, and I frankly don't think that the student's data loss is a $150,000-worthy atonement. I am thankful that "most" of it will go to charity, but I am despondent that there are lawyers who will heavily profit thanks to this particular student's complacency.

This is my aggravation in lawsuit frivolity coming through. It drives me insane to see this kind of money change hands for a legal matter of this nature.

Overquoted:

Very true. The overall issue has likely cost Amazon millions already in the public outrage that ensued. The money lost from the incredible amount of folks that dropped their interest in Kindle after this nightmare took place is sure to be VERY considerable.

They absolutely learned their lesson, and now they get to add a $150,000 salted slap to their already wounded face.

It's a shame. If these giants would only get their act together on the DRM issues and general distribution rights issues, this will all be a blip in the radar in a few more years.

There's no reason for me to not be able to finish a Kindle book, and then infrared beam it to a friend's Kindle as though I were handing them the paperback. But that's a discussion for another topic I guess. :)

Say what you want about lawyers, but they did the work and deserve to get paid.

One cannot make up for a crime by simply saying they learned their lesson. The fact is, the company committed a crime and should have to pay. I personally think that this type of attack against a persons privacy should have resulted in a settlement of 10 times that amount.

Lawsuit frivalty is a major problem in today's society. However, in this case the suit was both fair and justified. While having a contrary opinion is your right, it is my right to think you are ignorant.

Have you ever written a book report?

In general, you quote the book when you reference it, using the text word for word in your report. Along with your own discussion and interpretations of the book. The reports generally take a few days (to weeks) and multiple revisions to write.

Having a foreign body go through your written report and remove the text inside your quotes, in a file you had written, is the offense that is being paid for here. -- not the removal of the book itself, but the damage to the kids work, hours worth of effort put forth to find and reference the material were lost.

I completely agree. This boy's privacy was invaded. They might as well have stolen the book and papers off his desk. He got justice.

Most teachers would be understanding, even college professors so I don't see the problem there
Following the argument that it was a privacy issue yes independent work was destroyed but the work was taken from an illegal copy and could still be easily replaced using a legitimate copy if the kid used the correct citations
In essence Amazon just needed and probably will write the contract even more strictly prohibiting the users further and making the product less useful
Is that what anyone involved in the case wanted other than the lawyers?

The few people supporting the lawsuit seem to be missing the understanding that the boy's file was not altered at all, but the quoted text was a link from his file to the original so when the original was deleted, the link pointed to nothing. There was no invasion of privacy, no damage to his files and this was a frivolous lawsuit.

1. The original failt lies with the publisher.
Amazon should not have deleted 2 books that were sold and paid for. Since it was the publisher who had made the mistake, the publisher should have asked Amazon to stop selling new copies of the books, and the publisher should have arranged licenses with the license-holders for the copies already sold.

2. Amazon did not contact the owners of the books, to arrange a suitable solution. In stead they simply removed the files.

3. Making a backup of a kindle? Is this even possible. And if so, can you then perform a good restore? i.e. get a usable book again?
If I understand the way the Kindle works, the next time it would have connected after a restore (if at all possible) to Amazon, the book would be erased again. I'm not even sure the wbook would be usable after a restore.

4. What have you actually bought, when buying a ebook at Amazon?
With a paper book you get a packet of paper. And you can do anything with it that you like.
With an ebook for the Kindle, you get a file that Amazon can erase at will (or when the government wants it erased). So you don't own that. (and you cannot do with it, what you like)
A right to read the ebook? Again, Amazon can erase it at will, so you do not even have that right guaranteed.
So what exactly have you bought. Air?
I think Amazon should change it's licensing to renting books instead of selling books. Especially since most ebook are about as expensive as paper books. Yet for the Kindle you get nothing you actually own.
This also has a stink of Censureship to it: A company, the government, or a group of people that prevent an other group of people from reading a certain book, author, etc.
What if the government would want Amazon to remove all copies of Farenheit 451 by Bradbury. What then? Would that be acceptable to you, because it was asked by the government?

There are plenty of frivolous lawsuits, but this isn't one. If I purchased a book from Barnes and Nobles, left annotations in the margins for a research paper, and then B&N broke *into* my house, stole the book back, and left me a "reimbursement" for the book, I'd sue them. The fact that this is happening digitally is no less inappropriate, unless you're willing to condone any sort of electronic invasion of privacy, which includes identity theft.

I guess i just don't understand your argument dshell, since i did actually read the article, and see nowhere in it that Amazon went in and deleted his data, all i see is that they deleted the book, and his notes, which he admits were still there, no longer pointed to the relevant sections of the book (since the book was no longer there).

Amazon handled the removal of the book in the wrong way, no doubt about that. But Amazon is not the culprit here, they were screwed over by the company that had no right to distribute the book. THEY are the ones who should end up being fined IMHO. I have to agree that the $150k is a bit ridiculous. I don't blame the lawyers however. and if the family follows through and donates the money to charity then some good will come of it. (although it would have been nice to see the kid use it for college, but maybe they are well off enough to not need to worry about that)

Oh and BTW, dshell, i didn't mean to single you out, and also didn't mean it to be a personal attack of any sort, so i hope you don't take it that way, I just didn't see the same thing in the article that you did.

I found the concept of a company remotely going in and deleting information on a device that I own a little scary.

I'm surprised that there even is still a market for Kindle given this publicity.

Hi Perry,

As it stands now, it is my understanding that "purchasing" a book on a Kindle is really the purchase of a license to have the book on the device and read it. It is technically not a full purchase of the book like it would be on paper.

It's not the best model for e-book business right now, but it is still quite new (in this form) technology, and Amazon and Sony and dozens of others are seemingly still trying to wrap their collective heads around how to do it right. DRM is the center of the problem.

In my opinion, I can't see why the technology can't include an IR or Bluetooth transfer feature. Meaning, I buy a Kindle book that is locked to my particular device. I finish said book and a friend with a Kindle wants to borrow it. I could then be able to "beam" them the book which removes it from my device and locks it to theirs, etc. Same as if I'm handing them the novel in paperback form.

Would piracy ensue? Sure...but I'd think no more or less than what goes on now in the wonderful world of bit torrents, etc.

I still love my Kindle. It makes my daily commute a breeze, but it's absolutely a flawed technology that will get it's wings and really soar eventually (I'd hope).

@sonokodomo

It is most definitely your right to think of me as ignorant. However, there is a way to disagree amicably versus a "You're an idiot" kind of sentiment. Not that you've done so with me, but I'm just outlining what got me hot headed last night (and what gets me hot headed about comment threads in general).

Looking back at my first post, however, I realize how hot I was coming out of the gate, lol. I think it's safe to say I fueled a swift fire. :)

I forbid my children to use any elctronic gadget. Read books & use pencil & paper for homework. Maybe you'll actually learn something & not grow up to be stupid like most high school 'graduates' over the last decade or so.

I don't believe in Kindle. I think the books should be able to be directly downloaded to our laptops. PDAs, Pocket PCs or some other comparable device instead. The cost of getting Kindle is the cost of several comparable electronic devices that could easily do the same thing. Do away with Kindle, please.

This isn't a reward for failing to backup his work, this is restitution for invasion of his privacy.

I'm pretty sure the 150k would be rewarded as punitive damages to punish Amazon for what happenedn, not compensatory damages to cover the kids loss of homework. That would be nowhere near 150K worth of time.

And John, forbidding your children to use electronic equipment for homework will hurt them tremedously. Most of us do all of our work on computers and the people who don't know Microsoft Word or Excel really have a disadvantage in the workforce. If anything use should encourage your chidren to do all homework using this software so they have a better advantage. The world has changed, people work on computer screens these days and using a computer for homework will not make a person stupid. Computer programmers and engineers have some of the highest paying jobs out there.

Relying on computers to do everything for you isn't smart. It's called being LAZY. My children will not be fat blobs like 90% of Americans have become. Need to make a call? Stop & use a payphone, don't pull out a cellphone & kill someone because you can't watch the road.

Sheep Farm said: "I don't believe in Kindle. I think the books should be able to be directly downloaded to our laptops. PDAs, Pocket PCs or some other comparable device instead. The cost of getting Kindle is the cost of several comparable electronic devices that could easily do the same thing. Do away with Kindle, please."

You really have no idea what a Kindle is do you? LOL

I find it adorable that people will defend major corporations in lawsuits.

Amazon paid $150,000 to this kid, right?

Yeah. They took in 19.2 BILLION dollars in 2008. I don't feel sorry for the powr, powr biwwion dowwar company.

Good on the kid and his family for going after Amazon for data theft.

>>I find it adorable that people will defend major corporations in lawsuits.

I also find it adorable that so many people will instantly feel that major corporations are evil.

Does common sense ever apply to these judgments?