I do not apply the “thief” label to the end consumers in this case but, instead, to the publisher who screwed up (intentionally or otherwise).

But you cannot legally “own” property that was sold without the legal right to do so. I see no reason why digital property is any different. If it is not a legal copy, you don’t really own it even if you paid for it.

Of course, there’s no doubt that Amazon blew it with the way this was handled. But I think they were correct in determining that they needed to do something to protect themselves from potential litigation from somebody.

And I always start with the assumption that people are, in general, honest and will do the right thing. Those who prove me wrong are never trusted again. But I won’t damn everyone else because of those bad actors.

As a result, I am anti-DRM and our e-books don’t use it, unless we have no control over it (as with some retailers).

Also, I believe that publishers are foolish to stick to the $9.99 price point and said so in a blog post last month.

Add in the fact that not only were the books repossessed without notice, so were any notes and associated consumer commentary. Amazon, in effect, took back these books and illegally confiscated someone else’s intellectual property.

Likewise, there is some evidence that twere was territorial rights confusion over this title. I do not know for sure, but given the patchwork quilt of copyright laws we have around the world, these mistakes are only going to increase. Add in the confusion over legitimately public domain over in-copyright (do you honestly think the average US citizen is aware of the nuances of copyright extension laws?), the preponderance of free samples, and the lack of legitimate stores, and you have a lot of readers who simply don’t know.

I do not believe we will ever be in a position to address the serious problem of piracy until we address the underlying reasons. Contrary to media assertions, most people understand that they have to pay for things. They do so willingly. Understanding the factors, including unintentional piracy, behind these behaviors is the smartest, fastest way to solve the problem. Because as we’ve seen in the music industry, litigation didn’t help nearly as much as offering smart, legal choices for consumers.

(And while I applaud Houghton’s quick action to get a legitimate digital version of this book online for readers to purchase, c’mon $9.99?)

Folks, piracy is just a euphemism for theft. Period.

Motives are irrelevant. As is ignorance of the law, which has never been an accepted legal defense.

If the Feds had gotten involved in this issue, they probably would have found out from Amazon who had those e-books on their Kindles. They could then likely, legally have seized all those Kindles. What Amazon did was far less invasive, albeit with really poor customer communication.

Buy a stolen car (or would you rather say “pirated car”?) without knowing it’s stolen. How long do you think the cops will let you keep that car once they find you have it?

Theft is theft, whether of physical or intellectual property. Let’s not glamorize it.

The book in question was being sold in violation of the U.S. copyright. Even if this was being done unintentionally many would consider that to be a form of piracy (profiting from an IP product that someone else owns the rights to).

The company providing these ebooks has the right to deliver them outside the USA. They just didn’t have the right to do so within the United States. “1984″ is back on Amazon’s Kindle list (from the same distributor) with a disclaimer stating it is intended for use outside the USA.

It’s not a state of piracy, but one of them overstepping their permissions.