5 ms·

They were authorized to distribute the content according to the terms of the contract. It appears they distributed the content outside of those terms. I'm sure

by nknight 15y ago

They were authorized to distribute the content according to the terms of the contract. It appears they distributed the content outside of those terms. I'm sure there's language to ensure they won't get hit with damages, but they should be.

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
And the same contract says that they are not liable for damages in the event of an error. The contract does not support a claim for money, that case is a moral one rather than a legal one.
- wisty 15y ago
  He can still seek legal advice. Just because a contract says "we can't be held responsible for anything" doesn't mean it's always going to hold up in court. It just wouldn't be fair, and lawyers would lose too much business. What matters is the disputed amount ($13,000), whether the author wants to play hardball, and whether Amazon would rather pay him to go away or squash him like a bug (to set an example). Because even if he wins (and I've no idea if he can), it wouldn't be fun if Amazon got nasty. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't seen the contract in question, so I have no real idea, but it's not as clear cut as "you agreed not to sue us". It could very well be a bluff by Amazon.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    There are two sides to this: The theoretical - yes, you're right. It may be that the contract isn't airtight, though given that this appears to have been a genuine mistake rather than malice or profiteering on Amazon's part my suspicion is that the damage waiver isn't that unreasonable. The practical - $13,000 is nothing in the world of legal fees, no-one in their right mind would sue a multi-billion dollar company over such an amount, especially with a case that's not clear cut and that's the absolute maximum financial loss you can assign to it and there's a reasonable argument that the figure would be lower. Personally I think that Amazon should come to a goodwill settlement of a few thousand dollars with him but I suspect that's why I'm the one who hands over silly amounts of money to Jeff Bezos each month rather than the other way around.
- pbhjpbhj 15y ago
  So the question then is can you disclaim copyright infringement in this way, did Amazon do it right? They'll probably do the corporate thing and give $50k to a lawyer to check the contract rather than giving compensation for the costs they have forced on their client.
  - Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
    Of course not. The author and Amazon agreed a contract which they both understood which stated rules (Amazon could vary the price) and consequences (essentially none for Amazon so long as what they did was an honest mistake which it seems this was). The author had the right to not sign it or to ask for amendments (and not sign if they weren't granted) but whether or not it was a good deal for him or not he did agree to those terms and assigned certain rights to Amazon which they were asserting. Copyright infringement doesn't involve any agreement between the two parties, it's a simple assertion by one party that they don't wish to be bound by the (legal) rights of the other. They're not comparable situations and whatever superficial similarities exist it's nonsense to suggest they are.

by nknight 15y ago

Tyrannosaurs 15y ago

And the same contract says that they are not liable for damages in the event of an error. The contract does not support a claim for money, that case is a moral one rather than a legal one.

wisty 15y ago
He can still seek legal advice. Just because a contract says "we can't be held responsible for anything" doesn't mean it's always going to hold up in court. It just wouldn't be fair, and lawyers would lose too much business. What matters is the disputed amount ($13,000), whether the author wants to play hardball, and whether Amazon would rather pay him to go away or squash him like a bug (to set an example). Because even if he wins (and I've no idea if he can), it wouldn't be fun if Amazon got nasty. I'm not a lawyer, and I haven't seen the contract in question, so I have no real idea, but it's not as clear cut as "you agreed not to sue us". It could very well be a bluff by Amazon.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  There are two sides to this: The theoretical - yes, you're right. It may be that the contract isn't airtight, though given that this appears to have been a genuine mistake rather than malice or profiteering on Amazon's part my suspicion is that the damage waiver isn't that unreasonable. The practical - $13,000 is nothing in the world of legal fees, no-one in their right mind would sue a multi-billion dollar company over such an amount, especially with a case that's not clear cut and that's the absolute maximum financial loss you can assign to it and there's a reasonable argument that the figure would be lower. Personally I think that Amazon should come to a goodwill settlement of a few thousand dollars with him but I suspect that's why I'm the one who hands over silly amounts of money to Jeff Bezos each month rather than the other way around.
pbhjpbhj 15y ago
So the question then is can you disclaim copyright infringement in this way, did Amazon do it right? They'll probably do the corporate thing and give $50k to a lawyer to check the contract rather than giving compensation for the costs they have forced on their client.
- Tyrannosaurs 15y ago
  Of course not. The author and Amazon agreed a contract which they both understood which stated rules (Amazon could vary the price) and consequences (essentially none for Amazon so long as what they did was an honest mistake which it seems this was). The author had the right to not sign it or to ask for amendments (and not sign if they weren't granted) but whether or not it was a good deal for him or not he did agree to those terms and assigned certain rights to Amazon which they were asserting. Copyright infringement doesn't involve any agreement between the two parties, it's a simple assertion by one party that they don't wish to be bound by the (legal) rights of the other. They're not comparable situations and whatever superficial similarities exist it's nonsense to suggest they are.