Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Uses DMCA To Restrict Ebook Purchases
InlawBiker writes "Today, Amazon invoked the DMCA to force removal of a python script and instructions from the mobileread web site. The script is used to identify the Kindle's internal ID number, which can be used to enable non-Amazon purchased books to work on the Kindle. '...this week we received a DMCA take-down notice from Amazon requesting the removal of the tool kindlepid.py and instructions for it. Although we never hosted this tool (contrary to their claim), nor believe that this tool is used to remove technological measures (contrary to their claim), we decided, due to the vagueness of the DMCA law and our intention to remain in good relation with Amazon, to voluntarily follow their request and remove links and detailed instructions related to it.' Ironically, the purpose of the script is to make the Kindle more useful to its users."
How dare anyone attempt to enable users to do as they please with Amazon's personal property! Kindles and all their associated contents are the intellectual property of Amazon in perpetuity and just because you paid money for one and are in personal possession of it, that does not entitle you to do with it as you please.
I mean, where would we be if people could do as they liked with the things they buy?
May the Maths Be with you!
The number of books I would have to buy to make the Kindle worth buying makes me sad. Its a nifty device, but there's no way I'd ever get one.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
It's not about the Kindle's usefullness to the user, it's about the Kindle's usefullnes to amazon. The Kindle is not where Amazon makes their money, it's on the sale of the ebooks-- if people are buying them from elsewhere, Amazon is not getting their profit, and in fact it may be costing them money-- the Kindle is essentially subsidised by their ebooks.
It takes a lot of balls to ask someone to pay almost $400 for the privilege of buying stuff exclusively from you, and then tell them that modifying the software to do anything BUT buy stuff from you is illegal.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Ironically, the purpose of the script is to make the Kindle more useful to its users.
Nothing ironic about it. Amazon doesn't want the Kindle to be more useful than they've designed it to be. They've spent a great deal of money and effort making this platform, they don't want to have to compete with other people selling books for the thing.
From the relatively low cost of the device and the fact that access to Sprint's EV-DO network is free, I would assume that the kindle is a loss-leader for Amazon.
They're counting on making their money back and more selling the e-books over that network. And that only works if Kindle users get their books exclusively from Amazon. So clearly it's in their interest to limit the Kindle's capabilities in this way.
Having said that, it's not clear that the DMCA actually applies in this case. Though since the law is written so that large IP holders can bludgeon smaller entities, I'd say it seems to be working perfectly.
It breaks my pluginses, my precious!
Isn't this the business model of the Console?
Kindle is probably like the playstation, they don't make money on selling the unit, they make money on you buying books for it.
From the article:
The funny part is that many people like me will never have even heard of the script until Amazon made a fuss about it. I found it with a simple google search. Same with how-to instructions.
Hi, Amazon. I'd like for you to meet a very dear friend of mine, the Streisand Effect. You two are going to really get familiar with each other.
Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
I've only gotten one DMCA take down request, I wrote back and told the copyright owner which of my body parts he could orally copulate with and never heard back. If this web site thought the law was vague and that they were in the right, they should've told Amazon something similar and left the script up. Stupid laws like this only survive because people crumble in the face of silly threats.
Just because you run and hide from a pack of wolves doesn't mean you are a sheep. While you might wish them to martyr themselves for your principles, if they don't have the resources to fight, or if a win would not accomplish anything for anybody else, why shouldn't they act in their own best interests?
Sony's got to be kicking themselves, wondering where they went wrong. When they released a portable digital Walkman without native support for .MP3s, people just laughed at them.
Yet when Amazon releases a portable reader without native support for .PDFs, people trample their own mothers to get in line to buy one.
Can you imagine the derision people would have for Apple if you had to email your .MP3s to convert@apple.com to put them on your iPod or iPhone?
Or printers/ink or razors/blades. The big difference with e-books is that you have to create a shortage of product while it's a natural side-effect for ink or razors. You can't just download new razors.
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
Amazon isn't the only one that does this. Apple does this with their products. A lot of printing companies do this with ink cartridges. Car companies often control the supply of replacement parts. Secondary purchases are a huge economy everywhere. I don't like that use of the DMCA, though. Its implications really scare me. What if I modified my car then release the notes on a web page. Could the manufacture DMCA it down? Should this be an acceptable use of the DMCA? I think that DMCA notices should really come with a danger to misuse. If there isn't companies could DMCA their way out of webpages that attack their product. It would really make the company think about it be before it brought down it's huge club of injustice on an individual.
-1 is the only way to read /.
Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
Amazon sells the Kindle. Fine. Amazon sells eBooks. Fine. Amazon wants to restrict what a Kindle OWNER can do with his own hardware? Not fine.
Either Amazon should back down on this or they should discontinue the Kindle. They can't really do what they are doing without running afowl of some legal crusader in the near future.
It is the difference between
the protection of the law which both razors and kindles have,
and protection "realistic barrier to entry into the marketplace"
The thing keeping the razor blade model propped up is the design of the connector between handle & blade
A Gilette Mach XXX* has a very specific design and legally protected-physical connection
to enter the market/compete against this product requires large capital infusion, on a business level that can easily be knocked down in the court systems
if anyone could legitimately connect to that- then there would damnfinesure be some competition with generic knockoffs
Region Free DVD roms' Ebooks, wii's, xbox's jailbroken iphones-- the resources required to do these things are small by comparison
the fact is, the electrical goods as discussed here (e book files) and elsewhere can be modified on a per piece basis for far less.
Demand is not a factor-- ease of modification is.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Becasue even fighting it loudly could casuse Amazon to back down. Best case, Amazon loks like a bully, and people hate that.
IT also loudly shows the problems with the DMCA.
And if you make your fight in the arean of public opinion, you have strong allies. Based on cost, you qwould probably end up needing to do that.
Personally, I would post the letter on a blog. Pay a few hundred dollars to get a lawyer to draft a response.
The rest acan eb a public fight, for little cost.
So, while running and hiding from something you can't defeat is on thing, running and hiding when you ahve other cation to take is being a sheep.
You let the fear of the person with the stick cause you to run like everyone else.
This behavior should be avoided whenever possible because you can have all the rights in the world, but if you refuse to defend them, then really you have no rights at all.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Threatening legal action against people who want to use their own property in any way they like is not oppressive? The DMCA notices are just the beginning stages before they start filing lawsuits. This makes me wonder if I am actually feeding the troll...
Which is why I don't see how Amazon plans to build a market for this thing. Let's look at it from a business perspective: First you are trying to sell a kinda pricey device to what all would agree is a very limited market. And THEN you go out of your way to piss off the purchasers by screwing them from using anything but your overpriced content AFTER they just handed you money? Yeah, good luck ith that.
I can buy a Netbook for the same price or less than a Kindle, and do whatever I WANT to do with it, including reading .txt,.pdf,.html, whatever, and NOT get hamstringed by some corp trying to push overpriced content on me. Why would I want to give you my money for a Kindle now, Amazon?
I predict this time next year the Kindle will be just as dead as those proprietary ebook readers companies tried to sell during the last dotbomb. you have to know your market and more importantly, know your competition. By screwing their paying customers Amazon just made their product that much more worthless compared to the Netbook. Just not a good move in this economy IMHO.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You own the Kindle. You are not breaking Amazon DRM to put anything on the Kindle. Amazon can sit and spin.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
The whitespace is present in the source.
Perhaps more accurately demonstrates why restricted-html web pages as code repositories suck.
Repton.
They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.