Slashdot Mirror
Lose Your Amazon Account and Your Kindle Dies
Mike writes "If you buy a Kindle and some Kindle ebooks from Amazon, be careful of returning items. Amazon decided that one person had returned too many things, so they suspended his Amazon account, which meant that he could no longer buy any Kindle books, and any Kindle subscriptions he's paid for stop working. After some phone calls, Amazon granted him a one-time exception and reactivated his account again." Take this with as much salt as you'd like.
This is just another reason why DRM is not a benefit to the consumer and why consumers should *not* support DRM.
Defective by design
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Myth:
If you buy a Kindle, you are locked into Amazon's Kindle store.
Truth:
There are many sources for books that can be read on the Kindle.
Some Free Sites (Public Domain / Creative Commons)
MobileRead.com (look for .mobi books you can download to your computer or download the MobiGuide
and get your books via Whispernet)
Feedbooks.com (books can be downloaded to your computer or if you download their Kindle Guide
you can get your books via Whispernet - they even have a video on how to use the guide)
Manybooks.net (when you download to your computer, look for Kindle format or Mobipocket)
1001Books (download books to your computer or directly from your Kindle browser)
Some Pay Sites
Fictionwise.com (look for .mobi books but NOT Secure Mobipocket books)
BooksonBoard.com (register your Kindle's PID and you can download any .mobi from their Overdrive servers -
to learn more about this see the Visual Kindle Guide wiki)
Baen.com (great site for Sci-Fi books which offers free as well as low cost books)
So your Kindle is still somewhat useful. I would hope that more competition arises and Amazon removes its Kindle services from its e-book services so as to avoid a nasty inevitable anti-trust suit.
My work here is dung.
More like Annoying-le.
So you are saying if I buy a lawn mower from Home Depot and then I go in the next day and streak the place and get banned, they should also have the right to re-possess the lawn mower I legally purchased?
How is this any different? He bought a kindle, he bought books for it, then did something totally unrelated Amazon did not like, and they essentially remotely deactivated his device.
This makes me wonder what would happen with my G1 if for some reason I lost access to my Google account. (You basically can't do anything on the phone without being signed in, though you can create a new account from the phone itself.)
I suspect I could just link it to another account and re-sync contacts, calendar, etc. But then there's the question of purchased apps. Are they linked to the phone, to the cellular plan, or to the Google account? It's something I hadn't thought about before.
He clearly states that he regularly returns big ticket items because they're 'defective'. I know a number of people that utilize this same exploit on a regular basis. They only shop at places with excellent return policies. They order big ticket items and when they realize they maxxed their CC or decide the novelty has worn off, they return them because suddenly they notice a defect. Most of the time this defect was either imaginary or simply the result of several days/weeks of playtime.
As this becomes a hit to company profits, they will have to be much more careful on returns....making it much harder on those of us with valid returns. Too bad they reinstated his account.
Too Soon....
register your Kindle's PID
How do you find your Kindle's PID when Amazon makes sites delete information about KindlePID?
owned compusa I would be screwed. I have returned and exchanged a ton of the stuff I buy there and they never even charge restocking fees.
Good thing they can't suspend people that easily xD
Unless Mayor Bloomberg gets his way.
Consumer's relationship with Amazon is voluntary. If Amazon does too much of this, consumers will avoid them. The Kindle would not be selling if this was a reasonable concern shared by lots of consumers. It is not, so Kindle is selling. This is only happening because Amazon has a good record of customer satisfaction, established through years of effort to put the customer first.
If your account is flagged for returning shit, you're just dumb. Don't buy crap and then return it and expect to stay in a company's good graces for long. I think I speak for all people who ever retail when I say this to people who return more than 1 item every 6 months: Eat Shit And Die. You wouldn't abuse your friends and family like that, so why harrass stores and their employees, even if they're owned/employed by a soulless corperation. Something like 15% of items are returned (dollar amount perhaps), which significantly cuts into profits and drives up prices for everyone else. Fuck You.
/rant off.
i would kill myself before working retail again.
moox. for a new generation.
He returned items to Amazon.
Amazon banned his Amazon account.
The Kindle is tied to an Amazon account. If the Amazon account to which the Kindle is tied is banned, then you lose all download access to Amazon, including the ability to download the books you have already purchased.
Basically, the guy claims to have returned only defective items - none related to the Kindle - to Amazon. They banned his Amazon account, which also happened to cripple his Kindle.
Any device which comes with this much DRM should be prefixed with "i".
I believe they suspended his Amazon account because he had returned several purchases made on Amazon.com, not because he wanted to return eBooks. Since his Amazon account also serves as his Kindle account, he was then locked out of purchasing books for his Kindle.
Poor policy on their part but if you are really worried about this you could always just set up a separate account for your Kindle. If you never use it to make regular purchases I don't think you would ever have to touch it except to update your payment information when necessary.
To me this demonstrates the tradeoff between the convenience and concepts of 'property' issues that emerge when content is moved from a real-world media (book) to a digital one. Where in this transition is it implied that the original content creator has the right to demand how the product is to be used? If I buy a [real] book from Amazon, am I to expect that if Amazon cancels my account--for a legitimate reason or not--they have the right to come to my house and take back all the books I've bought (or been gifted by friends/family) from them? That word "unacceptable" is not near forceful enough to express how wrong that is. But somehow if I buy an e-book for the Kindle, suddenly that same exact behavior is greeted with, eh, whatever, it's just DRM.
My parents actually ordered me a Kindle for a graduation present, but fortunately it had not arrived in time for them to give it to me at graduation. I had them cancel the order. (They got me an iPod Touch instead.) There's no way in hell I'm willing to accept ridiculous levels of DRM for the benefit of being able to read a book on an electronic device. BOOKS ARE CHEAP and they do not NEED an electronic delivery mechanism! I don't quite understand why on earth a product like the Kindle needs to exist.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
If he's a terrible customer. If you want a good analogy...
Let's say you go to Target, and you open up a Target Redcard (their credit card). Let's say you return too many things, annoying them to no end (they have to accept all returns done in less than 90 days). Let's say that store bans you from their location. Based on what Amazon did, they would now be perfectly within their rights to cancel his credit card without a warning.
Yep, sounds reasonable and fair.
Also you get people who are extremely picky and abuse return policies to return things that aren't defective, but just aren't perfect. Displays are a big one people do that with. It is extremely rare to have a perfect display. There are always some minor imperfections. Well you get people who will just return and return displays trying to win the lottery and get the perfect one.
This has led many places to have a "no returns" kind of policy for screens.
I can fully understand Amazon getting sick of this kind of behaviour.
If there was any one still believing that any media that includes DRM is anything but a rental, take note. This should be even more fear inducing as this isn't an issue over a 3 or 4 year old game, this is just a customer that the seller decided they didn't like anymore.
Amazon gets their name of the front page yet again. What is this place? Amazon/Twitter/Microsoft/Apple Dot? Why is this here if the story sounds so fishy? I mean I know why, but I see plenty of submissions that are much more newsworthy, but they aren't selling anything and offer no fiscal return. The old adage of, "No such as thing as bad publicity" certainly holds true. Just make sure to spell the name right... Why not rename "submissions" to "Place your ad here"?
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
Thank you for clarifying what has already been stated in both the summary and in many posts above this one. /sarcasm
I work in an industry where I see people ordering things all the time, LARGE items, only to turn around and say "eh, it doesn't match my other furniture" or "I don't like the way the drawer slides on this" or "I bought this two months ago, didn't pull it out of the box until today and the item is broken" and return it.
Fuck him. And fuck anyone like that. You can look at a person's account and see "credit, credit, return, credit, credit, return, return, return" and you don't even have to question whether they're full of shit, it's obvious. The chances of that many damaged/defective items going to the same customer in that span of time, I don't care how much they order, is fucking impossible.
Now, who wants Corporate Express brand coffee?
He was clarifying for someone (Profane MuthaFucka) who didn't seem to understand. Why do you have a problem with that?
Because there are sharp sawblades, knives, chisels, and all kinds of other genital-unfriendlies in the Tool Department!
coding is life
Ban the use of the word "purchase" when permanent ownership is not transferred.
Leasers or renters can then advertise with "License a copy of XX, only $19.99!" or "Lease e-books with the Kindle!". If you wish to hold a "sale, 50%", just ensure that no products are included which is really "50% off license fee" instead. The term "one-click purchasing" would naturally be banned, and Amazon would have to change this to "one-click licensing".
Banning false descriptions is neither anti-business nor unfair.
Looks like I'll never be buying electronics from Amazon again.
Expect to see much more of this as cloud computing takes off. Every application you use will be licensed to you and subject to the whim of your vendor. Eventually we'll talk about the good old days when we owned our computers and everything on them.
mmmm...forbidden donut
Epic troll fail.
Allow me to respond in your native tongue... Idea of the is learn Anglaish the
...kindle to kindling?
Let's see the guy orders e-books and keeps them long enough to strip the protection off of them and then requests a refund. I think I would have canceled the account too. Add to this the fact that every e-book I've seen on Amazon allows a free trial. Where you get some amount of the book.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
You could "fix" him for that in Spaydes.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Hi,
i cannot praise Baen as much as they deserve. Their ebooks come in the format of your choice, completely free of any kind of DRM and some even any without charge (Baen Free Library with books like David Webers "Honor Harrington: On Basilisk station" or Lois McMaster Bujolds "Miles Vorkosigan: The Mountains of Mourning").
There is even a popular SF&F Author (Eric Flint) ranting against DRM, whose words most of you will take directly to the heart. There is still hope as there are publishers and authors who can read the writings on the wall.
Sincerely yours, Martin
I understood perfectly. Nowhere has anyone even tried to argue my main point - the guy was a lousy customer and Amazon was right to cut him off.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Like takedown notices have ever stopped information from getting out, before..
But Amazon's attempt to cover up KindlePID does signal Amazon's intent that owners of Kindle devices not buy DRM works from other providers.
Yawn. I understand the article, you don't need to explain it for me.
He was a worthless customer, so he got cut loose. We can't even trust him in this article, because we've got only his side of the story. He could be the worst customer in the world, and is just making shit up to get sympathy in his action against Amazon. That's my point.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I'm using Amazon EC2 and S3, and I've specifically separated the amazon 'buy-books' account from the 'do-web-stuff' account. It's annoying, but worth the possible issues when something happens with one or the other service so that it doesn't bleed over. I can see Amazon using leverage from one side on the other. Same with Gmail and Google AppEngine, since I use my Gmail account to store stuff.
The more people I meet, the better I like my dog.
I've got high standards and have been buying things on Amazon for five years. I even bought my wife's wedding ring on Amazon. I've never had the need to return anything. Once or twice would be expected, but this guy sounds like a serial returner. Maybe he should shop at Wal-mart...no questions asked.
The title of this article is very misleading. If your amazon account is cut-off your kindle would not die.
What would happen is that you wouldn't be able to access the newsfeeds and you wouldn't be able to redownload books you've purchased from amazon.
You would still be able to ...
Read any amazon books still on your kindle or that you've backed up to your computer.
Read any non-DRM books (I've read as many DRM free books on my kindle as I have DRM books bought from amazon).
So, that's a long way from your kindle dieing.
This is a bit off-topic, but given the discussion about the Kindle, I thought it close enough.
The Google ad that was served to me was for...you guessed it! The Amazon Kindle.
I always think it's interesting how Google can pick up on key words and serve a proper ad, but it can't pick up that those key words are associated with other negative words. Is someone visiting a website about '$Product sucks' really interested in seeing an ad for $Product?
Do you suppose they could exclude such sites, but don't want to because of the loss of revenue it might be associated with? I wonder how much advertising revenue is generated by ads served to people who are expressly against a given product?
I don't buy much of anything of value unless it is a great price--as in I could sell it for the same or more if I change my mind. Unless they are sending you broken crap, don't return it-eBay it.
And this crap is one of the reasons why I bought the 505 over the Kindle, the other being PDF support.
To add a book to my 505 I plug in the 505 open it up like a USB drive, and click and drag.
That is all, I have no idea what the Sony software looks like.
When you're buying a Kindle, you're purchasing a device that: 1) *Insert all technical features of Kindle* 2) Allows you to easily purchase publications and subscriptions from Amazons website. By removing his account, they have effectively broken his Kindle by removing functionality that is part of the original specification. It's like buying an XM Radio receiver and having your account deleted. Yes, the receiver still "works" but it is not providing you with the service you were promised when you purchased it. Anytime Amazon decides to delete a users account, they should have to offer a full, unconditional refund on the Kindle.
Him being a lousy customer - not Illegal or Unethical
Amazon not wanting to sell him anything again - not Illegal or Unethical
Ensuring that he can't use his expensive Kindle (not being able to download archived books or new ones from the company that sold it to him) - Unethical and Dubiously legal
I remember having to return a 1TB lacie hard drive recently which I think the sales guy at futureshop broke before he handed it to me by placing it on a large speaker that was turned on. I also had to return my first Amiga 500 many years back which I had also bought from future shop but other than that, I have not had any dead pixels or other problems that I can recall.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
That would be a return vs a replacement. If you buy something, and it is defective, you give it back to them and they give you a new one. That's a replacement. I think stores understand fine that if they sell a broken item, you are going to want it replaced with a working one. A return is when you buy something, and then decide you don't want it and take it back for cash. There's nothing wrong, you just don't want the item.
Now this happens. Sometimes you get something and determine that no, it really doesn't meet your needs. That's ok, however it shouldn't happen very often. If you are regularly returning items, you are being a jackass. You are using them as a "try out" things, or basically as a free rental service. That isn't right.
If you're talking about periodicals or school textbooks then e-book readers make sense to me, but if you're purchasing a piece of literature that you're going to keep beyond next week, then I think e-books are more trouble than they're worth, especially if someone can arbitrarily decide that you shouldn't be allowed access to something you've already paid for, regardless of whether the person mentioned "should have made backup copies". I'd feel less strongly about this if there was no DRM involved, but as is, I say "no way".
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
!! Self Promotion Warning !!
This is a new concept in audio book delivery currently on XP/Vista but coming to Linux/Mac (Java) not to mention a smartphone near you. No CDs, no file management, just drag a book from the library and drop it in the player software and it starts playing. No lengthy downloads. Or you can use the pod loader to manage the book parts on any mp3 device (except iPod and Kindel that is, DRM problems). A nice feature is you can start listening to a book on your PC at home and pickup right where you left off during lunch on your office PC without having to bring anything with you, no CDs no files.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
And tell them what you think! ala Spore
turn off the Whispernet 3G service and put your own damned books on the thing. I've done so (200+) courtesy of Gutenberg. Just because they can remotely nuke your 'bought' books, you're more than free to put whatever you like on the device. I'm also pretty sure using the Stanza software you can ALSO convert any PDF into readable documents onto the Kindle as well. I enjoy my ebook device. I don't need Amazon to tell me what I can't put on it.
My desire for a Kindle just dropped from "It's really cool and I am going to eventually have one!" to zero.
The main reason I have not cared for e-books is that I want ownership - I want to keep my books. Until now, I assumed I would with a Kindle, obviously not.
Pug
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
I dislike DRM as much as anyone, but it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. If the AZW format wasn't DRM'ed, and Amazon chose to suspend this guy's account for returning too many items, he'd be in exactly the same boat he's in now.
He would have lost his subscriptions, his previous purchases would still be available, and he'd have lost a convenient place to buy new content.
There are issues of proprietary technology (access to whispernet is a big selling point for a Kindle), and perhaps issues of monopoly power and certainly isues of big-corporation-pushes-around-little-guy, but DRM really isn't an issue here at all.
At least in the US, a business open to the public can only refuse business to a person that is breaking the law such as being a nuisance, and they can ask you to leave if you are loitering. The "We reserve the right to refuse business..." is an act of civil disobedience, and I would bet protect free speech, so long as it is not enforced. Businesses must give a lawful reason to refuse to serve someone. The opposite of that is the right to free association, but those same businesses must not advertise or serve to the public, they loose rights to limited liability, and many tax breaks / incentives. In those case, there is no limit on how you choose to discriminate; ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, whatever.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Is it true that he could continue to use the material that he has already purchased? If so that would put a slightly less ominous tinge on the affair. (Still nothing that would inspire me to purchase a Kindle, but better than my original impression.)
The car analogy to that would be that he could continue to drive the car he just bought from Amazon, but he was no longer allowed to fill it up with gas.
The fact that they didn't brick his Kindle doesn't matter because he can never obtain the content to justify this expensive purchase (aka not being able to drive the car after emptying the gas tank).
But I've been reading ebooks for almost a decade on my Palm, Visor, Jornada, and Clie. I looked at the Kindle because my wife was interested in it (she didn't want to read ebooks on a Visor, Jornada, or iPaq I offered her at various points), but if Amazon is going to lock the books she buys if she pisses Amazon off... I think I'll see if she likes the new version of Mobibook Reader again.
Books in the public domain are about ten billion years old in reading/writing-years and not highly relevant to any serious discussion about "reading books".. they are, however, a serious distraction to a serious discussion about electronic books. (nothing against old books, but it's a crappy hedge to say "well, but ther are some books in the world that are not locked down with DRM and thus totally at risk on a Kindle or equivalent).
I'll Believe once contemporary, NY Times Book Review publications by current authors are available in an open format. The sites offered a a counter-example carry anything but that... because no site does.
Oh, booksonboard has books by current authors? Sure. Some.
Maybe you missed the fine print:
Adobe Digital Edition
Copy Permissions: Disabled
Print Permissions: Disabled
Lend Permissions: Disabled
Read Aloud Feature: Disabled
i suppose that's kinda-open but it's not open-open.
And then logged in to type this response, and while I was logged off I noticed that there was a google ad for the Kindle. I'm much less likely to click that advertisement now.
that the headline didn't read: Loose your Amazon account and and your Kindle dies.
I don't have a Kindle and have never bought anything from Amazon, so I'm just guessing a bit.
If I'm correct, you buy a book for your kindle, and then you can download that book to your kindle (or your pc)
When they (amazon) suspend/close your account, you can't download that book anymore.
Which should not be a problem, since you've downloaded it already. You can still use the file you've downloaded, can't you?
I don't see the big problem here.
Your ability to buy their books does.
Not one book on my kindle came from amazon, but instead are converted PDF files. Amazon has zero control over my unit.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Open to the public is not the proper definition. This would put most businesses in the category and that is not the case. Case law on this mainly surrounds private shopping centers. There is a narrow standard that SCOTUS defined. Each state may widen that standard based on their own constitution. A business in a center is still free to restrict access for any reason unless state laws provide protected classes or specific prohibitions.
...but those same businesses must not advertise or serve to the public, they loose rights to limited liability, and many tax breaks / incentives.
That statement is incorrect. Stop playing an armchair lawyer, you are bad at it.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
Problem is the story isn't even 100% true.
In your analogy it's more like you get banned from the store so you cant buy their accessories.
The mower is still in your possession and still works with 3rd party accessories.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I'm unclear how the existence of non-existence of DRM on the Kindle makes any difference in this case. He can't buy from the Amazon store. Okay. If Amazon only sold un-DRMed ebooks, then he still wouldn't be able to buy from the store. Further, the Kindle doesn't just display books purchased from Amazon. Any non-DRM ebook can be read on the Kindle. Further, he says that he can still read his purchased books on his Kindle. The main thing I dislike about the situation is the fact that he can't move his DRMed books off of the Kindle (say, in a few years when he wants a new ebook reader).
From the slashdot summary: "and any Kindle subscriptions he's paid for stop working." Where does it say that in the article? (Or is the Slashdot submitter's dislike of DRM causing him to interpret this as another "bad DRM" story?)
Heh. So _Fahrenheit 451_ isn't too far off? Only we don't have to burn all the books, all we have to do is digitize and encrypt them. Then we can cancel anything in the database, that is current, which we don't like with a simple query. Something like:
[First name of author]! and pre/2 [last name of author] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!
My tongue is in my cheek for now, but I agree with the sentiment: If you hand someone a loaded gun, don't be surprised if it goes off inconveniently.
I reject DRM as long as there are "unencumbered" means to own and trade the media, like a paperback. I jealously protect my own power as a consumer. If we are to surrender that power, we should ensure we're actually getting something for it: better convenience, lower costs, higher quality, lesser environmental impact, whatever.
Then we must make sure it's an equivalent trade, in total convenience, costs and time/fees to manage our legal affairs, or we are being ripped off.
I see most of this stuff as a rip off on the basis of TCO.
--
Toro
I've returned each and every defective product I've ever purchased from Amazon. Why hasn't my account been deactivated? There's more to this story.
My sister used to work at a large national kids toy store chain. At the time it had a no questions asked, no restrictions type return guarantee. After a length of time you'd only get store credit but they would take anything back no matter what. Every October masses of certain types would haul in 'defective' wading pools. In fact, every Autumn a wave of Summer products were returned as 'defective'. Basketballs warn so the lettering was missing were returned as 'defective'. Roller Skates that were obviously years old returned as 'defective'. With of course the child in tow to go get another pair 1-2 sizes larger.
It was seasonal and predictable within certain types of people. Some out there just feel entitled. They'll use merchandise then return it when they're finished or for any reason. It's the wrong color. "Yes, I picked the red one but now I want the blue one" kind of attitude. "I changed my mind" is another justification they use. Anyone who has worked retail will have stories.
I don't like that the Kindle is a service. What the complainer describes brings that to light. For that reason and that I never buy books retail I wouldn't purchase a one anyway. But before I'd go all ape sh*t on Amazon I'd want to know the facts, not just someone touting that all his returns were justified. Some people can justify anything.
-[d]-
and the fact that they reinstated him half a day later is not pertinent...why ?
your main point is stupid due to your inherent idiocy.
sure, it kills tress, but it's MINE ALL MINE BABEEE!!!
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
It's the latest PHB groupthink, you need to fire some of your customers every now and then, just like employees. Example: My car insurance was paid in monthly installments. I paid my car insurance bill late one too many times and they then told me they would cancel me unless I paid for 6 months at a time up front. That was harder to do, and they finally cancelled not only my auto insurance, but my internet bank checking account with that company. Now I am unable to get my cancelled checks or prior claim information because I am even banned from Company X website.
I hate it when I mis-moderate a post.
Why buy a Kindle when we can buy a Hanlin eReader? You even get the complete source code that runs on the machine, and you can replace its Linux-based OS with OpenInkpot, an OS created by its users.
Some companies will not let you have the same credit card on multiple accounts. I think ebay does this.
As a potential lottery winner, I totally support tax cuts for the wealthy
I don't think so.
Clearly this hasn't been Amazon's best week. They've really put their foot into it twice already, and the week ain't even over yet.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
"At least in the US, a business open to the public can only refuse business to a person that is breaking the law such as being a nuisance, and they can ask you to leave if you are loitering."
That's not true. As a retail business owner, I regularly kick out customers and trespass them, and I, in no way, need any reason to do so.
It's different because what Amazon blocked, if his post is the full story, is purchases IN THE FUTURE of NEW content for his Kindle. How is that some evil taking back of things he thought he'd already paid for? It's not. He can still read all the books and content he's already purchased -- he just can't read anything new.
If you want to make a comparison to Home Depot, it's as if you bought a lawn mower, then returned it fifty times for this or that warranty repair, and they got pissed off at you, thought you were a whiner and a parasite, and banned you from buying accessories for the mower from their store.
Now, to make the analogy complete, we have to imagine that the mower is made by Home Depot, and you *can't* buy accessories elsewhere, so your mower will be a lot less useful in the future than you thought it would be. The action by Home Depot hurts more.
But I'm not seeing how any of your imagined property rights on your mower have been violated. You can still do what you damn well please with the mower. HD isn't restrictign your use of what you already own in any way at all. They're just declining to sell you additional parts that would make your mower still more useful, and I don't see what's wrong with that. Requiring them to make business transactions with you forever just because they did so once is obnoxious. Imagine if it worked the other way around -- if the law said that, once you bought a mower from Home Depot, YOU were required to buy all your future accessories from them. Suck much? But that's the forced-marriage deal you want to force on Home Depot. It fails the Golden Rule test.
I don't doubt that this guy is unhappy because he counted on being able to buy content from Amazon in the future for his Kindle. But...well, maybe he should have thought about that before returning SEVERAL $1000 pieces of big electronics. I mean, if doing business deals with him ends up costing Amazon money on the whole, instead of earning them money, what the hell did he expect? Why would they want to continue doing business with him? In essence, he's a "defective" customer, not working as they thought, and they're "returning" him. If, as he says, it's Amazon's fault, because they keep sending him defective merchandise, well, then he ought to be just as happy as Amazon that they're severing their business relationship.
Not backing up files which a trivial to copy - complete stupid.
And bhagwad not understanding that the Kindle is still useful without Amazon service? What does that mean?
Do you even OWN a Kindle? Why are you talking?
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
I've worked for an ISP, telecom in B2B sales and financial services. I've made it an occasional habit to browse the web (after work hours) and look at customer complaints. There's always two sides of the story. After looking at said complaints, I've looked at some of the accounts in the computer system(s) used. Some were quite fair. Others were total exaggerations, lies or very deceitful.
Companies take PR hits unfairly in some cases because of this. The one thing I will say: customers use a lot of energy to vent and complain. They were very rarely write to say the situation was resolved, to apologize that they were in the wrong, or that the company did everything in its power to resolve the situation reasonably and both mutually agreed it could not be.
What are you talking about? Did you change the subject to some kind of fantasy topic?
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Wow, I'm shocked. Even by Slashdot standards, there is more crap posted here than I can believe.
I'm pro-Open Source and love and use Linux (have since 1993) and am a big opponent of DRM.
BUT I BOUGHT AND OWN TWO KINDLES. Let me explode some myths being posted here with facts:
1) Canceling your Amazon account doesn't brick the kindle OR erase it. All books are still on it, and it still works. You just can't buy more Amazon DRM books for it. If you hate DRM anyway, that shouldn't bug you.
2) You CAN EASILY put non-DRM content in several formats on your Kindle. I have several Mobipocket and a pile of Gutenberg books on my Kindles.
3) You DO NOT NEED the online service. Kindle has a USB port that requires no drivers. It works with Linux, Windows, and Mac OS as a USB drive. This way you can also use your Kindle to store files, like an iPod!
4) YOU CAN BACK UP the books on your kindle. Just copy the files to your PC. Of course, if you switch devices or to a new Kindle, you won't be able to re-use the Amazon DRM files you bought. But if you're a big DRM hater, this isn't a problem, right, because you just didn't buy any DRM content to begin with and read open content on your Kindle instead!
I hate DRM as much as the next guy, but Kindle is a PERFECTLY GOOD EBOOK READER FOR OPEN CONTENT WITH A USB PORT. You're not forced to use Whispernet or Amazon DRM files, and if you do and your account is closed, you don't lose access to the files on your Kindle, only to re-downloading them from Amazon.
Sheesh, there's a lot of crap being posted here.
Never buy a device tied, locked-in and fusion-bonded to ONE supplier, ONE format, ONE company.
Long live my dead tree shelves that will be readable in 400 years from now, long after the last Kindle can't power up.
Note that buying stuff from Amazon is a lot riskier that buying that same stuff from a brick&mortar- you can't see, touch, or test the product in-store before you buy it. So, I would NATURALLY expect people to end up returning more products to amazon than to a brick & mortar store. If you look through the thread, this appears to be a common practice of cutting people off without prior warning if they surpass an unpublished threshold. That's pretty reprehensible to begin with, but to cut off a large segment of the functionality of a product
*DESIGNED* to function primarily with their service is terrible. Above and beyond the point of this practice being reprehensible, this *is* an example of broken DRM functionality, since it is because of the DRM that the functionality is reduced. I can't believe there are actually apologists arguing otherwise.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1018&message=29975989%5D
>3 returns in a year and you are banned for life.
New Economic Perspectives
After reading that post and subsequent comments including the Amazon letter he received, there is no question in my mind: Amazon is guilty of theft.
The facts are these: He returned some items (that were not books or e-books) and had his account banned. Along with his purchase account, his Kindle account was also banned. If that meant he could continue using the books he already had, fine. But because of DRM, he cannot access the books he already purchased!
Ian says:
By making legitimately purchased information unavailable to him, Amazon is stealing (this is traditional theft -- taking something away from someone without the person's permission). If you do not agree with this, consider this scenario: Barnes & Noble is dissatisfied with your behaviour as a customer, so they ban you from all of their stores. And then they come to your house and take away all the books in your library because they claim you no longer have a right to access them.
Be very afraid of the cloud. Companies will be able to do anything they want with your information.
All data is speech. All speech is Free.
So this is like Home Depot sells you a faulty lawnmower, and replaces it with a string of other faulty lawnmowers, then bans you from the entire store because you bothered them too much with returns.
A TOS can violate laws and not be legal in itself.
Just because some amature lawyer makes a TOS doesnt make it as good as a constition.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Someone else posted a link. The right word was "business that serves the general public" from this and and this (posted by someone else above) seem to support that almost any reason is valid when it can be supported there was almost any business interest, but arbitrary discrimination isn't allowed. That doesn't mean it isn't done, but what business owner would just randomly not want to do business. I didn't mean to imply that a business owner has to sit someone down and explain the reason, maybe they just scream at the customer unintelligibly waving a broom. Just saying if it became a legal matter, the business owner has a burden to meet.
and as far as the last quote, would you mind finding me an example of a limited liability corporation with a business in a commercially zoned area that has successfully argued their right to free association, establishing any kind of precedence, anywhere in the United States?
I will totally agree that shopping centers are goofy, but to the best of my understanding, don't shopping centers most always have their own zoning with special rules and such that are agreements made between the mall business and the city.
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
Is to say "breaking the law" to imply that there is a burden greater than there really is? And isn't kicking people out for trespassing a reason? I also neither said nor think I implied that you needed to give the reason when you kick someone out, just that if someone decided to sue, you wouldn't be completely free from having to explain what happened to win the defense. If they are not there to do business, then they are trespassing. Are you really kicking people out for NO reason? I would bet if you are unwilling to do business with someone, it is because you are trying to protect your business and pragmatic about your policy.
Just as an example, if you had a hardware store, and without any evidence, you just thought it would be good for business to not allow any high school students in at any time, such a policy couldn't possibly get you in some legal trouble?
Want Big Business out of government? Take away the incentive and start by getting government out of big business!
...but arbitrary discrimination isn't allowed.
It is allowed on a federal level. The reason for restricted access cannot be to discriminate against a protected class. The classes are the same as employment protection. States can widen those classes or place additional restrictions.
A business can prevent people from entering a store because they are not wearing a shirt or shoes, or they have a history with causing disturbances, or they are consuming food items. A store can remove patrons under the pretense of the above reasons when in reality they do not want the patronage of the protected class. It happens all time and it very difficult to prove unless monitored.
would you mind finding me an example of a limited liability corporation with a business in a commercially zoned area that has successfully argued their right to free association, establishing any kind of precedence, anywhere in the United States?
You made the claim, The opposite of that is the right to free association, but those same businesses must not advertise or serve to the public, they loose rights to limited liability, and many tax breaks / incentives. It is up to you to provide proof.
Limited liabilty comes from either the corporate or LLC business structure. Both are based on state law and there are fifty states. There is nothing in California law regarding corporations or LLCs losing their limited liability status when they discriminate. Corporations are sued regularly for civil rights violations. I highly doubt other states have such laws. In Calfornia, corporations and LLCs pay an $800 per year franchise fee. LLCs can elect to be taxed as a corporation by the IRS (and that election is passed down to the state level), therefore I am not sure what tax breaks they get.
don't shopping centers most always have their own zoning with special rules and such that are agreements made between the mall business and the city.
Shopping centers are considered public meeting places akin to town squares. They must allow free access (during normal business hours) to the public and cannot discriminate based on speech, although they can remove patrons that are causing a disturbance.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.
A follow up to my prior comments. I think you are very confused with the idea of limited liability. I want to comment further on the matter.
When a company is found to be violating civil rights, there can be a monetary judgement and/or a court order for remedy. Violation of the court order can lead to fines and additional sanctions. At no time does a busniness with limited liability lose that right. A municipality can revoke a business license but the business still maintains limited liability.
Also, one correction on my prior comment. It is allowed on a federal level. Should read It is not allowed on the federal level.
I want to stress that the any reason is outside of protected classes or specific prohibitions on the state level. Of course, the fact is businesses routinely disriminate against protected classes. And, much like employment discrimination, it is tough to prove without blantant actions. Telling a group of black teenagers to get out of the store because they smell or are messing up the shelves is reasonable. A store owner could even vary their reasons to exclude blacks. Much like an employer disriminating against older workers.
Slashdot - The great and glorious cluster fuck of Internet wisdom.