Jeff Bezos Offers Apology For Erasing 1984

levicivita writes "From the down-but-not-out NYT comes an article (warning: login may be required) about user backlash against Kindle's embedded DRM: 'Last week, Jeffrey P. Bezos, chief executive of Amazon, offered an apparently heartfelt and anguished mea culpa to customers whose digital editions of George Orwell's "1984" were remotely deleted from their Kindle reading devices. Though copies of the books were sold by a bookseller that did not have legal rights to the novel, Mr. Bezos wrote on a company forum that Amazon's "'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles."' Bezos's post is here."

Comments

Responsibility to customers

[woutersimons_com]

Amazon has refunded their customers according to the article, but if I was halfway through a book and it got deleted from my device I would be very annoyed. To me it seems that the better solution would be for Amazon to arrange the correct rights from the copyright holder and arrange some form of deal to make sure that those who have a copy of the book on their Kindle can continue to use it or receive a new copy with the proper rights and at no cost. In the end, the material was offered through their service and they do have responsibility to their customers, even if it is not illegal for them to use this solution.

The apology posted from Mr. Bezos sounds heartfelt indeed. I wonder how this will be handled in future incidents like this one. Unfortunately, in the Netherlands we do not have access to the Kindle. But even with the risks of allowing Amazon to retain control to remotely delete items you have purchased I would definitely be a customer for the device. I suppose that with products like these you have to decide whether you trust a supplier or not.

Re:Responsibility to customers

[zeromorph]

For me, the "apology" doesn't sound heartfelt at all. It is easily written, doesn't cost much and makes good PR. It may be a smart and cheap move for the CEO, but it doesn't impress me. However, using the word solution - even in quotation marks - is impudent. One could call it "intrusion" or "encroachment" - maybe - but dispossessing people of something they paid for, because you made a mistake is not even near something you could call a "solution".

I know why I never wanted this DRM-ridden Kindle, now even more than before, but if something like this would happen to me I would be really really pissed.

When will they ever learn that DRM just means defective by design?

Re:Responsibility to customers

[blackest_k]

Your being too nice about it.

Amazon has revealed by their actions that they have back doored the kindle, they are able to do what they wish with it and you can't do a thing about it.

They have violated their customers privacy and made a mockery of the first principle of buying anything if you paid for it its yours not theirs.

If it was a service that you bought then perhaps it would be almost acceptable , you would generally be able to terminate the contract if you didn't wish to continue.

At the very least Amazon customers should be able to return the kindle and get a full refund on the kindle and the books they bought. Thats all kindle owners because the sale was a fraud and a complete breach of trust.
Who knows just what has and can be transmitted from your kindle back to Amazon.

Sincere apologies don't cut it, Amazon deserve to be sued in court and punitive damages awarded. The only reasonable action would have been for amazon to ask for users to delete the copies, like with any other product recall it is up to the customer to comply or not. Instead Amazon has tipped its hand by demonstrating the control they have over the kindles which are no longer the property of Amazon.

I don't see how anyone can fail to see how outrageous Amazons actions are.

The only issue is just what charges apply in a case like this because this is absolutely unheard of.

What I can't believe is there is not one negative post to Jeff Bezos's apology you would almost think that someone was filtering any incoming posts.

Re:Responsibility to customers

[bkr1_2k]

How does that prevent them from deleting things the next time you go shopping?

The problem is that they have the ability to do that in the first place.

Re:Responsibility to customers

[rolfwind]

If you buy an illegal item, it could theoretically be repossessed.

The police come and take it, with warrant. Not the person who sold it to you - they would be charged with trespassing/theft if they did. And if the police confiscate it, you'll have your day in court if you want it back.

Amazon isn't the police. It does not have the right to act as if were.

Re:Responsibility to customers

[quadrox]

what the fuck? seriously?

How does DRM solve the backup problem and whatever else for me? The ONLY purpose of DRM is to make sure they can deny access to a) pirates b) me, a paying customer WHENEVER THEY WANT.

There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.

The fact that steam does allow you to redownload your purchased digital goods is not because of DRM, but it is simply a service they offer. They could just as well offer it without DRM.

I know you will be modded insightful soon, but oh my god what a ignorant stance on DRM to have.

Re:Responsibility to customers

[morgan_greywolf]

How does DRM solve the backup problem and whatever else for me? The ONLY purpose of DRM is to make sure they can deny access to a) pirates b) me, a paying customer WHENEVER THEY WANT

While I agree with this 100% because it is totally accurate and totally to the point...

There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.

I can't agree totally with this. DRM makes content that would otherwise be unavailable in a digital format available, only because some companies refuse to license their content unless it is protected by DRM.

If you don't like that company's stance, then don't pay for/license their content. Vote with your feet. It's what the free market is all about.

And now you know why I do not now, and nor will I ever, possess an Amazon Kindle. (Hear me Bezos?)

Re:Responsibility to customers

[Spy der Mann]

There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.

I can't agree totally with this. DRM makes content that would otherwise be unavailable in a digital format available, only because some companies refuse to license their content unless it is protected by DRM.

Your logic is terribly flawed. Let's make an analogy. "Oh, I refuse to give you food unless you become my slave". Would that make slavery good because it would give you food that would otherwise be unavailable to you?

My point is that you're praising DRM not because it is good in itself, but because you believe that it's necessary for companies to license content. Well, here's the news: It's NOT.

If you want to bend over to companies and say "Sure, I'll accept DRM just to read my favorite books on electronic format", you're practically giving away your money. What happens if a virus, or some hacker attack on DRM devices erases all your electronic books?

DRM has no benefit at all. It's a time bomb because it gives companies the means to do what they want to do with the books you have ALREADY purchased. It gives them money, and it jeopardizes your investment.

And when that happens, and you wonder whatever happened to the first sale doctrine, I'll be reading my paperback copy of 1984 while wondering what has become of the free world.

Re:Responsibility to customers

[Asic Eng]

I think it's not the copyright holders, it's Amazon. They apparently had someone selling something they didn't have the rights to, through their store. In this case they had no choice but to stop the sales. However rather than deleting books they could have:

• compensated the rights holders for the lost sales (and try to get the money back from the unauthorized publisher)
• offered the money back to customers
• offered to exchange the book for the equivalent version from another publisher
• gone to court and ask for a court order that the "illegal" copies should be deleted from customer devices

They really had no right to play police.

the cat

[ionix5891]

is out of the bag now Bezos

i was interested in a DX but now ill just get a laptop

this is yet another reason not to buy a kindle, how many other geeks out there feel same way now ?

Amazon's solution was:

[therufus]

"'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles."

You forgot ironic. The big brother connotations on this scandal makes the whole story somewhat funny even.

Three Words

[FudRucker]

used book store

Talk is cheap

[Marcika]

Has Bezos offered anything more material than a free "apology" as compensation for his customers? No? Then any talk of this being "heartfelt and anguished" is just the corporate spin of the issue.

If Amazon truly wanted to fix their mistake, they would restore the book to the affected Kindles (and work out a deal with the rightholders themselves, maybe).

Re:Talk is cheap

[maxwell demon]

If they sold paper copies of books where the publisher didn't have the publishing rights, would they come to every customer who bought the book and take it away?

Apology Nothing...

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

Unless Amazon sees to it that the last thing remotely deleted is their ability to remotely delete, their "apology" is just so much eloquent PR posturing.

Out of line with principles?

[Alethes]

If this is out of line with Amazon's principles, then why does the technology to remotely delete books exist?

If he only had a heart...

[retech]

If you really want to restore faith in your customers how about completely unlocking their kindles and let them decide what they do and do not delete? Or perhaps that's too much heart for Bezos.

I doubt he'd have a single "heartfelt" thing to say if he wasn't dragged over the hot coals of the net.

Repeat after me: Death to DRM.

[Zombie Ryushu]

Repeat after me: Death to DRM. Terminate all instances of DRM in all cases. The user's content is the user's fair use. Resist DRM until death

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re I wonder how this will be handled in the future

[MRe_nl]

The statement, from Amazon's Drew Herdener, reads:

        These books were added to our catalog using our self-service platform by a third-party who did not have the rights to the books...When we were notified of this by the rights holder, we removed the illegal copies from our systems and from customers' devices, and refunded customers....

We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.

As highlighted by the WSJ, the case draws attention to an expectation gap between real books and their digital counterparts: the latter is simply a license to read the content on your device.

"Believe what you say while you are saying it"

[John Hasler]

I'm sure Mr. Bezos can afford advisors who know that that is the key to "sincerity" and can coach him on how to achieve it.

However, they still consciously and deliberately designed their system so as to allow them to remove material from Kindle owners' machines without their knowledge or permission. Why would anyone trust a company that would do that? Have they removed that functionality and explained why it was there in the first place?

Re:Who would have thought?

[John Hasler]

It cannot possibly have been a "brain fart". The decision to design the system so as to make this sort of thing possible has to have been conscious and deliberate. Giving their managers to the power to remove material from your Kindle was clearly a policy decision.

Re:MiniTruth: This warn you.

[selven]

Why is a 60-year-old book so important to our modern culture under someone's copyright control anyway?

Plenty of points to be missed

[RingDev]

The right of first sale, The purchaser bought the book in good faith. The seller, who sold illegally can turn over the list of people they sold that book to, and the police can track down all those people and confiscate their kindles while an expert deletes the book from each of them. If the consumers had purchased dead tree copies of the book that Amazon had sold illegally, Amazon would not be allowed to trespass into each person's house and remove the book. So why is it that they are allowed to trespass into our digital property and steal (as in I paid and had it, now I don't) from us?

Unfortunately, that would be costly and expensive, so instead they just overstep their bounds and deleted the files themselves. While claiming that the customers had only purchased a revocable license to read the content of the book.

Personally, I'd really like to see some of these cases of license to view content vs sale of property get into a court. Because as it stands now, consumers are on the significantly shorter end of the stick. Heck I'd love to see Congress be proactive, but the odds of that happening are about slim to nil.

-Rick