5 ms·

You're absolutely right. A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to de

by ekiru 17y ago

You're absolutely right. A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning. Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them. I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside". Are you intentionally saying something that is equivalent to "Ignoring the meaning of 'intellectual property' and 'physical property', intellectual property is not like physical property?" I assume not, but I'm not sure what you meant to say there.

andreyf 17y ago
A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning. Agreed, this is a much better comparison! :) I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside" By "semantics", I was referring to the word "property". I mean that if I sell you a loaf of bread, it's a transaction governed by a nearly disjoint set of laws than if I sell you a poem or program that I wrote. For example, I can't sell you a loaf of bread and force you to eat it on a Monday, but I can sell you a DRM-ed program that only runs on Mondays (enforced by people with heavy sticks and shiny guns ;)). If our goal is creating a productivity-maximizing society, I think enforcing some restrictions of copyright are a good idea, as long as they "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [1], but current copyright law seems as if it might over-reach that. What I would love to see is a real debate about where the line should be drawn. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause
jamesbritt 17y ago
"Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them." The annotations were not destroyed. The work they referenced was removed. The claim is that, absent that work (with its particular page numbers , etc. I'm guessing) those notes are essentially useless, since they now refer to a void.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  The annotations still exist, amazon claims they make backups of user annotations on their servers.
- ekiru 17y ago
  Are you sure the annotations weren't removed as well? Not having a Kindle, I don't know, but some of the articles covering the matter have said that they were.
  - jamesbritt 17y ago
    http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my-homework/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my... 'Amazon didn’t delete the file containing Gawronski’s notes on the Kindle device. But since the book text “no longer exists, all my notes refer back to nothing,” he said. “I can’t really use it for much.”'

by ekiru 17y ago

andreyf 17y ago

A better comparison would be if you bought a computer from Apple and were using iWork to write some notes, and then Apple decided to delete the notes you had been writing without your permission and without warning. Agreed, this is a much better comparison! :) I don't really understand what you mean when you say "semantics aside" By "semantics", I was referring to the word "property". I mean that if I sell you a loaf of bread, it's a transaction governed by a nearly disjoint set of laws than if I sell you a poem or program that I wrote. For example, I can't sell you a loaf of bread and force you to eat it on a Monday, but I can sell you a DRM-ed program that only runs on Mondays (enforced by people with heavy sticks and shiny guns ;)). If our goal is creating a productivity-maximizing society, I think enforcing some restrictions of copyright are a good idea, as long as they "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts" [1], but current copyright law seems as if it might over-reach that. What I would love to see is a real debate about where the line should be drawn. 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

jamesbritt 17y ago

"Regardless of the legality of deleting the 1984 ebook, it's ridiculous to assert that Amazon should be able to destroy anyone's annotations for any reason. Those annotations belong to the user who created them." The annotations were not destroyed. The work they referenced was removed. The claim is that, absent that work (with its particular page numbers , etc. I'm guessing) those notes are essentially useless, since they now refer to a void.

jacquesm 17y ago
The annotations still exist, amazon claims they make backups of user annotations on their servers.
ekiru 17y ago
Are you sure the annotations weren't removed as well? Not having a Kindle, I don't know, but some of the articles covering the matter have said that they were.
- jamesbritt 17y ago
  http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my-homework/ http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/07/30/lawsuit-amazon-ate-my... 'Amazon didn’t delete the file containing Gawronski’s notes on the Kindle device. But since the book text “no longer exists, all my notes refer back to nothing,” he said. “I can’t really use it for much.”'