I see that you've released the book using the Creative Commons "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" license, so it looks like Amazon is clearly in error here. Have you contacted them according to the instructions here? http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html/102-5493...
There's a telephone number there-- I imagine you should be able to get this cleared up quickly.
This could be interpreted, as there is no contradictory license statement on that page, as "this book is free-libre".
If "Amazon Digital Services" (which, if not originating with Amazon, has to be a Trademark violation that could lose Amazon their Trademark right if not challenged) counter the DMCA notice with such a statement I think that would leave the matter unresolved and Amazon wouldn't, IIRC, be obliged to take down the material. You'd have to lawyer up instead.
But who would seriously interpret it that way, other than as a pedantic legal defense? ;-) When the newspaper says "Toy Story DVD Free Today!" it'd be odd to interpret that as assuming you could sell your own copies of Toy Story. I don't think authors necessarily have to stoop to defining everything in legally precise terms if the general term fits the case and, particularly, since copyright law is on their side already even if they say nothing.
The general term "completely free" means that I'm
able to do absolutely anything with it without paying.
In a court of law, it doesn't mean squat, unless the work itself has been released in public domain and even then, in some countries public domain doesn't apply or is limited.
That's why there's a copyright law that is applied implicitly and that's why releasing works should be accompanied by a real license that explicitly says what you're allowed to do.
The reason "completely free" does not mean anything is because it is ambiguous. If it refers to price, that doesn't mean you can redistribute it.
that it could be sufficient defence against a DMCA
Ambiguity was my claim initially if you read back.
Clearly you have a handle on DMCA take down notices that I don't. How, if an ambiguity in license isn't sufficient, does the DMCA protect from malicious take down notices. If what you say is true then it appears that one can simply submit a DMCA take down notice and the carrier is always required to remove the content without and need to demonstrate that it is infringing.
Obviously it's fine to remove content that is questionable, within ones ToS, but we're not looking at that.
1. The ebook, page 3 clearly states the license as:
> The Foundations of Programming book is licensed under the Attribution-NonCommercial-Share-Alike 3.0
Unported license.
You are basically free to copy, distribute and display the book. However, I ask that you always attribute
the book to me, Karl Seguin, do not use it for commercial purposes and share any alterations you make
under the same license.
2. Amazon would not bother to challenge the DMCA over that license. This is getting attention because Amazon refuses to take any action.
1. My previous post: "there is no contradictory license statement on that page".
First thing I did was dl it to check the license given in the book after I noticed there was none given on the web page other than "completely free".
He muddies the water further in your quote, "free to copy, distribute and display the book. However, I ask that you always attribute the book to me, Karl Seguin, do not use it for commercial purposes". So I can't use it at work but I can sell it. Of course that wasn't what he meant to say but that's what he did say. So which license applies "completely free", "NC use, but otherwise free" or NC-BY-SA?
2. As I understand it a DMCA take down notice is only effective if it is unchallenged, if there are some grounds to challenge it then there is no need by the receiver to take down the material. Lawyers then earn money arguing the legal niceties and a judge decides and if necessary injuncts the service provider to remove the material.
Amazon may of course choose independently to take the material down but I don't think they are obliged too. If they were then any challenge, even one that was clearly bogus would require material to be taken down.
Do you think these reasons are reasons for me not to have posted? Downvotes should be used to show that a comment isn't furthering the conversation or adding to it any way.
Did I not, by pointing out potential problems with licensing, further the conversation.
It's kinda orthogonal to the discussion but I think Amazon and "Amazon Digital Services" have acted very poorly, just in case you felt my comments endorsed them in some way.
It's the NonCommercial part that they are breaking. You can sell Creative Commons stuff on Amazon's KDP if it allows commerical reuse (obviously you'll have to turn off the DRM option)
There's a telephone number there-- I imagine you should be able to get this cleared up quickly.