Electronic book burning if you ask me!!!!
==============================
Amazon Kindle E-book Deletion Prompts Lawsuit
Amazon angered customers when it remotely deleted two books in from Kindle e-book readers without notifying their owners.
By Antone Gonsalves InformationWeek July 31, 2009 04:57 PM
A high school student has sued Amazon (NSDQ: AMZN), claiming the retailer ruined his homework on George Orwell's 1984 by deleting the electronic version of the book without warning from the teenager's Kindle.
Justin D. Gawronski, who lives in Michigan, filed the lawsuit Thursday in federal court in Seattle. He was joined in the complaint by Antoine J. Bruguier of California, who also had the book deleted from his Kindle.
The plaintiffs, who claim Amazon did not have the right to remove the book, are seeking class-action status.
Amazon angered customers and drew severe criticism from consumer advocates when it deleted 1984 and Orwell's other well-known book Animal Farm in mid-July from Kindle e-book readers without notifying their owners.
Amazon, which developed and sells the Kindle, later said it took the unusual action after learning that the books had been added to its e-book catalog by a third-party who did not have the rights to sell the books.
Removing the books from the catalog alone would have sparked little controversy. But Amazon's decision to also delete them remotely from customers' Kindles highlighted the retailer's control over electronic content purchased for the devices. This week, the Boston non-profit, The Free Software Foundation, said it would present Amazon with a petition asking that Amazon relinquish control of the e-books customers load on Kindles.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued that Amazon never disclosed its ability to remove content at will, a fact that might have affected customers' decision to buy the Kindle.
"The capability for Amazon to remotely delete purchased items is material in a consumer's decision to buy Kindles or e-books through the Kindle Store," the lawsuit says. "The value of Kindles and reading materials purchased through the Kindle Store are significantly diminished by Amazon's ability to remotely delete digital content, including e-books, magazines and newspapers."
In Gawronski's case, the student lost more than just the Orwell book. The copious notes he had made on the e-book version of "1984," which had been assigned to him as a summer homework assignment, "were rendered useless because they no longer referenced the relevant parts of the book."
"Mr. Gawronski now needs to recreate all of his studies," the suit says.
Amazon Chief Executive Jeff Bezos last week apologized for removing the books, saying the company's handling of the problem presented by unknowingly selling illegal copies of the books was "stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles."
Nevertheless, Gawronski and Bruguier argue that Amazon is still liable for the damages caused by its actions that go beyond refunding the money spent on the e-books. The plaintiffs are seeking restitution for "all damages caused by its conduct," as well as litigation expenses and attorney fees. The plaintiffs are being represented by the Chicago law firm KamberEdelson.
In addition, the suit asks the court to rule that Amazon does not have the right to remotely delete digital content from Kindles and such action is a violation of Amazon's terms of use for the device.
"Unless restrained and enjoined, Amazon will continue to commit such acts," the lawsuit says.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Monday, July 27, 2009
Police: Woman accused of killing newborn ate brain - Yahoo! News
SAN ANTONIO – A woman charged with murdering her 3 1/2-week-old son used a knife and two swords to dismember the child and ate parts of his body, including his brain, before stabbing herself in the torso and slicing her own throat, police said Monday.
Otty Sanchez, 33, is charged with capital murder in the death of her infant son, Scott Wesley Buchholtz-Sanchez. She was recovering from her wounds at a hospital, and was being held on $1 million bail.
San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said the early Sunday morning attack occurred a week after the child's father moved out. Otty Sanchez's sister and her sister's two children, ages 5 and 7, were in the house, but none were harmed.
Otty Sanchez's aunt, Gloria Sanchez, said her niece had been "in and out" of a psychiatric ward, and that the hospital called several months ago looking to check up on her. She did not elaborate on the nature of her niece's health problems.
"Otty didn't mean to do that. She was not in her right mind," a sobbing Gloria Sanchez told The Associated Press on Monday by phone. She said her family was devastated.
McManus, who appeared uncomfortable as he addressed reporters, said Sanchez apparently ate the child's brain and some other body parts. She also decapitated the infant, tore off his face and chewed off three of his toes before stabbing herself.
"It's too heinous for me to describe it any further," McManus said.
McManus described the crime scene as so grisly that police officers barely spoke to each other while looking through the house. Parts of the child were missing, including pieces that Sanchez allegedly ate.
"At this particular scene you could have heard a pin drop," McManus said. "No one was speaking. It was about as somber as it could have been."
Officers called to Sanchez's house at about 5 a.m. Sunday found her sitting on the couch screaming "I killed my baby! I killed my baby!" McManus said. They found the boy's body in a bedroom.
Police said Sanchez said the devil told her to kill her son and that she was hearing voices.
"It was a spontaneous utterance," McManus said.
Police said Sanchez did not have an attorney, and they declined to identify family members who might speak on her behalf.
No one answered the door Monday at Sanchez's one-story home, where the blinds were shut. A hopscotch pattern and red hearts were drawn on the walk leading up to the house.
Neighbor Luis Yanez, 23, said his kids went to school with one of the small children who lived at the house. He said he often saw a woman playing outside with the children but didn't know whether it was Otty.
"Why would you do that to your baby?" said Yanez, a tire technician. "It brings chills to you. They can't defend themselves."
Authorities said Sanchez and her sister took turns watching the baby Sunday morning, and that the boy was placed in Sanchez's care at about 1:30 a.m. Her sister discovered what happened about three hours later and called police.
Investigators are looking into Sanchez's mental health history to see if there was anything "significant," and whether postpartum difficulties could have played a role in the attack, McManus said.
The killing called to mind the drowning of five children by their mother in the bathtub of their Houston-area home in 2001. Attorneys for the woman, Andrea Yates, said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell. A jury found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006.
Otty Sanchez, 33, is charged with capital murder in the death of her infant son, Scott Wesley Buchholtz-Sanchez. She was recovering from her wounds at a hospital, and was being held on $1 million bail.
San Antonio Police Chief William McManus said the early Sunday morning attack occurred a week after the child's father moved out. Otty Sanchez's sister and her sister's two children, ages 5 and 7, were in the house, but none were harmed.
Otty Sanchez's aunt, Gloria Sanchez, said her niece had been "in and out" of a psychiatric ward, and that the hospital called several months ago looking to check up on her. She did not elaborate on the nature of her niece's health problems.
"Otty didn't mean to do that. She was not in her right mind," a sobbing Gloria Sanchez told The Associated Press on Monday by phone. She said her family was devastated.
McManus, who appeared uncomfortable as he addressed reporters, said Sanchez apparently ate the child's brain and some other body parts. She also decapitated the infant, tore off his face and chewed off three of his toes before stabbing herself.
"It's too heinous for me to describe it any further," McManus said.
McManus described the crime scene as so grisly that police officers barely spoke to each other while looking through the house. Parts of the child were missing, including pieces that Sanchez allegedly ate.
"At this particular scene you could have heard a pin drop," McManus said. "No one was speaking. It was about as somber as it could have been."
Officers called to Sanchez's house at about 5 a.m. Sunday found her sitting on the couch screaming "I killed my baby! I killed my baby!" McManus said. They found the boy's body in a bedroom.
Police said Sanchez said the devil told her to kill her son and that she was hearing voices.
"It was a spontaneous utterance," McManus said.
Police said Sanchez did not have an attorney, and they declined to identify family members who might speak on her behalf.
No one answered the door Monday at Sanchez's one-story home, where the blinds were shut. A hopscotch pattern and red hearts were drawn on the walk leading up to the house.
Neighbor Luis Yanez, 23, said his kids went to school with one of the small children who lived at the house. He said he often saw a woman playing outside with the children but didn't know whether it was Otty.
"Why would you do that to your baby?" said Yanez, a tire technician. "It brings chills to you. They can't defend themselves."
Authorities said Sanchez and her sister took turns watching the baby Sunday morning, and that the boy was placed in Sanchez's care at about 1:30 a.m. Her sister discovered what happened about three hours later and called police.
Investigators are looking into Sanchez's mental health history to see if there was anything "significant," and whether postpartum difficulties could have played a role in the attack, McManus said.
The killing called to mind the drowning of five children by their mother in the bathtub of their Houston-area home in 2001. Attorneys for the woman, Andrea Yates, said she suffered from severe postpartum psychosis and, in a delusional state, believed Satan was inside her and was trying to save them from hell. A jury found Yates not guilty by reason of insanity in 2006.
Friday, July 24, 2009
Saucy sausage ads condemned
LONDON (Reuters) – A saucy radio advert for sausages which encouraged listeners to reveal "where you like to stick yours" was criticized by Britain's advertising watchdog on Wednesday.
The ads for Mattesons smoked sausages elicited 21 complaints from listeners who said they were offensive because of the sexual innuendo and should not have been aired when children were likely to be listening.
"Think about all the things you can stick this tasty, extraordinarily large sausage in," one advert said.
"Mmm... Pizza, pasta, stir fry. You have any ideas? Give me a call and tell me where you like to stick it."
Kerry Foods, which makes the sausages, said its adverts were intended to be tongue-in-cheek and were not designed to be offensive.
The Advertising Standards Authority did not uphold the complaints about the innuendo because it was not sexually explicit, but said the ads could "cause harm to children."
It ruled the ads should not be aired at times when they were likely to be heard by children.
==============================
Listen to the ad and give your opinion!!!! Click the link below
Listen to Mattesons sausages 'Where do you like to stick it?' advert Media guardian.co.uk
The ads for Mattesons smoked sausages elicited 21 complaints from listeners who said they were offensive because of the sexual innuendo and should not have been aired when children were likely to be listening.
"Think about all the things you can stick this tasty, extraordinarily large sausage in," one advert said.
"Mmm... Pizza, pasta, stir fry. You have any ideas? Give me a call and tell me where you like to stick it."
Kerry Foods, which makes the sausages, said its adverts were intended to be tongue-in-cheek and were not designed to be offensive.
The Advertising Standards Authority did not uphold the complaints about the innuendo because it was not sexually explicit, but said the ads could "cause harm to children."
It ruled the ads should not be aired at times when they were likely to be heard by children.
==============================
Listen to the ad and give your opinion!!!! Click the link below
Listen to Mattesons sausages 'Where do you like to stick it?' advert Media guardian.co.uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
