Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Offers To Return Pulled Orwell Ebooks

Posted by Soulskill on from the act-of-contrition dept.

Back in July, Amazon faced public outrage over their decision to delete ebook copies of 1984 and Animal Farm from the Kindles of customers who purchased them. Shortly thereafter, CEO Jeff Bezos offered an apology, acknowledging that Amazon handled the situation in a "stupid" and "thoughtless" manner. Now, they're offering something more substantial: anyone who had an ebook deleted can now have it restored, apparently with annotations intact. Any customer who isn't interested in a new copy can get either an Amazon gift certificate or a check for $30.

64 of 256 comments (clear)

  1. damage by wizardforce · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think that the damage has already been done. Amazon handled the situation poorly and when confronted about the situation took a lot more time to attempt to remedy the problem than was necessary to degrade their image.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    1. Re:damage by SputnikPanic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And Amazon also did the right thing by not going taking the typical non-acknowledgment position and instead admitting -- quite publicly -- that they screwed up big. I still have some problems with how Amazon does particular things (read: Kindle DRM), but it's refreshing to see a company fess up in no unequivocal terms when they do something that upsets their customers.

    2. Re:damage by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, it's not significant. I've worked for a few very large companies, larger than Amazon and apathy for the customer isn't acceptable no matter how big you are.

      Yes, acknowledgment of the colossal stupidity of their decision months later is nice, but that doesn't resolve the bigger problems.
      1) It takes months for Amazon complaints, even serious ones to reach a decision point and have action taken.
      2) Amazon retains remote kill-switch features in the Kindle and they have shown their willingness to use it.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    3. Re:damage by Falcon4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And somehow, them actually doing the best-possible thing is "handling the situation poorly"?

      Let's recap.
      - Amazon automagically pulled books from peoples' Kindles that were unauthorized copies (sold, yes, but apparently not legally by the "publisher").
      - Amazon provided everyone with a refund.
      - People got pissed.
      - Amazon's CEO apologized profusely in public and swore to make it right.
      - Amazon put the books back even though they were never - and still aren't - entirely legitimate copies. Again... paid for, yes, but that's like paying zomgdownloadlimewirenow.com $9.95 a month to download songs (and viruses) through a scam copy of Limewire.
      - People get free books.

      Instead of:
      - Amazon pulled books.
      - People got pissed.
      - Amazon craps out standard form-response of "that book wasn't legally purchased by the reseller" and refunds money.
      - People sue Amazon.
      - Amazon wins.
      - Whine, whine, whine.

      Somehow what Amazon actually did is considered being handled "poorly"?

    4. Re:damage by digitalunity · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How else would you explain the 2 month time period that elapsed before a decision was made?

      Both very large companies I have worked for in the past corrected decisions that affected the customer in hours, not months. When you do something hilariously stupid, you fix it immediately and ponder the ramifications later. That's just good business.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    5. Re:damage by Shadow+of+Eternity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Something else that's been bugging me is the offer regarding user annotations. Are those supposed to be stored elsewhere because if they aren't amazon just gave away that they don't just have a killswitch but also keep watch on what you do with the kindle.

      --
      A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
    6. Re:damage by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somehow what Amazon actually did is considered being handled "poorly"?

      instead of paying the proper royalties for having sold the book they decided to retroactively void a contract between Amazon and the consumer. Only now are they realizing what they have done and attempt to repair the damage the way they should have done in the first place.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    7. Re:damage by petermgreen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My understanding is that the annotations are stored seperately and could indeed be accessed after the book dissapeared. The trouble is without the context provided by the exact version of the book they are meant to go with the annotations lose a lot of thier meaning.

      So if amazon has restored the exact version of the book they killed then I don't see the annotations regaining thier context as too serious.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    8. Re:damage by bhartman34 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How else would you explain the 2 month time period that elapsed before a decision was made?

      You may be over-simplifying the situation. The thing you have to remember here is that this wasn't a simple matter of Amazon shipping people the wrong color sweater. In essence, they shipped out stolen property. They were never free to just shrug their shoulders, say "Oops!", and pretend nothing happened. Their ebook business model depends on them rigorously defending the rights of IP owners. If copyright holders get the idea that anyone can just upload a copy of a work to Amazon without their permission, and start making cash off of it, the Kindle will fail. Of course, none of this is to say that Amazon handled the original situation well. What they probably should've done was to first make a statement about what happened, and then explain that customers should delete the books on their own, but if the user chose not to do that, it would be automatically deleted in an "update" after some predetermined date. (Of course, they would need to point to the part of the user agreement that allowed them to do this, but in this case, giving notice to users would've been the right thing to do, even if they weren't actually required to do it, legally.

      But, as to the original question: The reason Amazon took so long to react after they made the mistake they did was simple enough to understand: There was undoubtedly some behind-the-scenes maneuvering with the copyright holder, and some bean-counting in terms of how much they could afford to pay out in credit should someone not want to re-download the book.

    9. Re:damage by bhartman34 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Something else that's been bugging me is the offer regarding user annotations. Are those supposed to be stored elsewhere because if they aren't amazon just gave away that they don't just have a killswitch but also keep watch on what you do with the kindle.

      Your annotations are saved along with the electronic book, both on the Kindle and on Amazon's servers. A while back Amazon announced the online storage of annotations. I was actually surprised at first that annotations were caught up in the Orwell fiasco, considering that they're stored in files independent from the book itself. I can only assume that the original copyright holder put the squeeze on Amazon, claiming that the notes were "derivative works" or some such thing, and that since the users didn't have the right to the books, they didn't have the rights to the notes. Or else the copyright holder didn't want the user to retain clippings of the book.

      IANAL, and I don't mean to imply that either of those are valid reasons to delete the notes from the Kindle, but I could see the copyright holder's legal counsel trying that kind of argument.In particular, I could see a lawyer looking at the Kindle's clipping capability and wondering just how much of a book you could save as a TXT file (or a series of files) that way.

    10. Re:damage by jpmorgan · · Score: 5, Informative

      The situation originated because Amazon did not have the legal right to distribute copies of 1984 in the first place. They refunded the purchase, but they could hardly turn around and knowingly redistribute illegal copies. I mean, you can rightfully criticize them for the original circumstance, but to be fair it may have taken them 2 months to acquire the rights to legally restore those copies.

    11. Re:damage by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bigger damage is that they've demonstrated that no matter what book you buy for it, they can take it away at any time and you're powerless to stop it. Paper copy is still the best option.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    12. Re:damage by Quothz · · Score: 5, Informative

      I think you're missing a key detail, that the books were pulled because the SELLER (that is: not Amazon) was selling the books illegally via Amazon.

      You are mistaken. The publisher changed its mind about offering an electronic version. The copies were sold legitimately from a publisher with the rights to do so. Linky.

    13. Re:damage by Cyberllama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Let's be a little more fair with Amazon. They realized they screwed up *right away*. They were apologizing left and right and acknowledged they made the wrong call and its a pretty safe bet it won't happen again anytime soon (unless there's a court order, for instance, forcing Amazon's hand).

      Understand what lead this to this:

      1) The book was listed through Amazon by someone claiming it as a public domain work, which it was, in *Canada*.
      2) Amazon sells said book, only later realizing that the "rights owner" selling the book did not have said rights, at least not in the United States.
      3) Amazon makes a bad call, probably on advice of some legal department grunt, and makes a lot of people mad.
      4) Amazon realizes that was the wrong call, but can't undo it without breaking the law so they apologize -- a lot -- and meanwhile negotiate with the real rights holder to put themselves into a position (now) where they can offer to replace the book.

      Yes, mistakes were made, but they've been pretty honest and apologetic about them. If you can still hold a grudge after this, well then you're just a bit too bitter for my tastes. A 30 dollar check is more than generous, and probably more than you'd get as a class action settlement after the lawyers took their cut. Hell, for 30 bucks I'm wiling to bet you can buy the book in the new format and still have enough left over to go buy yourself some ice cream or something.

      Really, what is there to still be mad about?

      Yes, amazon still has a kill switch, but I think they've been sufficiently humbled to the point where we're very unlikely to see it ever used again. And while I dont love the concept, pretty much all DRM systems have them. Apple can do the same thing to your iPhone apps. Not only can they remove them from the App store, but they can actually reach out to your phone and tell your phone to delete the app. I could give other examples, but suffice to say, MANY people have this sort of power over the "digital property" you think you own but you're really just renting. It's a bitter pill, but you're just gonna have to swallow it. Know that companies are going to be very careful about how they use that power, at least, as a result of this incident and so you probably have nothing to fear.

    14. Re:damage by jim_v2000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A small vocal handful of people actually give a shit about this whole thing. The rest of us are happy with the apology from Bezos and the refund/restore of the book. They're not going to do this again.

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    15. Re:damage by FireFury03 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In essence, they shipped out stolen property.

      Not quite. If you (the customer) purchase stolen goods then you can lose them without compensation as they are returned to their rightful owner. I'm not sure the same is true if you purchase goods which infringe copyright.

      They were never free to just shrug their shoulders, say "Oops!", and pretend nothing happened.

      If they had shipped an infringing physical book, they would have said "Oops!" and simply paid damages to the copyright holder. They wouldn't break into the homes of all their customers and retrieve the books.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    16. Re:damage by digitalunity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Nobody is saying they should have redistributed the copies illegally.

      The proper course of action would have been to never have a remote kill-switch in the first place. The fact that Amazon remotely deleted everyones copies of the copyrighted work did not remove their civil liability for copyright infringement. It might have made the copyright owner more palpable but had they chosen to sue Amazon, Bezos would have found himself none the safer.

      From a simple customer fairness perspective, Amazon's customers purchased the book in good faith. Amazon should have no more right, let alone capability to forcibly take the book away than a brick and mortar store has to force you to return a physical book. If you buy a physical book from Barnes & Noble and it turns out that the printer didn't have copyrights to produce it, B&N doesn't call you demanding you return the book-they resolve the issue between the copyright holder and publisher behind the scenes.

      Amazon should be no different.

      --
      You can't legislate goodness. Let each to his own destiny, by will of his freely made choices.
    17. Re:damage by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amazon has given us all a great gift: a real-world object lesson on why DRM is anti-consumer.

    18. Re:damage by FireFury03 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      its a pretty safe bet it won't happen again anytime soon (unless there's a court order, for instance, forcing Amazon's hand).

      Yes, amazon still has a kill switch, but I think they've been sufficiently humbled to the point where we're very unlikely to see it ever used again.

      You've hit the nail right on the head here but have somehow not realised yet. There is a big problem that now that Amazon has demonstrated the existence of a killswitch, it opens the door for a court to order them to use it even if they don't want to themselves. The killswitch should *never* have been present in the first place. If this fiasco had happened with paper books then Amazon would have just paid damages to the copyright holder rather than breaking into everyone's homes and retrieving the books - that's exactly what they should have happened with the ebooks too.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
    19. Re:damage by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      By now, they've likely noticed their numbers are not recovering and are trying another round of the damage control thing.

      It's too late. It only takes one very conspicuously nasty action on their part to sour customers' attitudes. People who already have Kindles are pretty much stuck with them, but attracting new customers will be harder.

      The fact that Amazon CAN swipe content off your device after you've bought it in good faith is damaging enough. The fact that Amazon has demonstrated that they WILL do so makes it worse.

      This also brings up the inadequacy of their "cloud" model for storage of annotations etc.: if you have any content you want to keep, you had better handle storage yourself, because nobody else can be trusted. This principle, of course, goes beyond Amazon, but is brought into focus here. This means, of course, that although Amazon was an early starter with e-book readers, I would not be surprised if they were surpassed at some stage by some other (hopefully open-source?) product with more robust storage/backup options.

    20. Re:damage by rhizome · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really, what is there to still be mad about?

      Begging the question a bit, aren't we? You assume that everything you laid out is the entire situation. However, just because you are satisfied with an apology and a mere statement of good intentions doesn't mean you're the arbiter of good sense. Maybe your standards are too low. "Mistakes were made" is a joke, you know...a satire on passive voice.

      You give Amazon entirely too much credit and benefit of the doubt here. Some "legal department grunt?" You can't be serious.

      Amazon could certainly have worked this out differently, also without breaking the law: they pay the rightsholders and leave existing copies in place. For a book like 1984, I think it's just as likely that a check for $30 for each copy sold, written to the rightsholders, would be as effective as all of this was. Maybe $50, but Amazon multiplied the number of people screwed by orders of magnintude here anyway.

      As for your weak-ass "Welp, that's just the way it is. Best we get used to it, guys!" blather, consumers are allowed to have standards and I have no idea why you would want to dissuade them from expecting better than they got. It's almost like you're arguing that people just plain shouldn't have higher standards of behavior and quality than corporations. I don't think you know what you're talking about when you assert that Amazon has been "sufficiently" humbled, because where I'm sitting it's just the same old same ol'.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    21. Re:damage by psm321 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Copyright violation is not theft, it's copyright violation. And no, the distinction is not academic. Stolen property can be taken back by the rightful owner, but the remedy for copyright violation is a civil suit or settlement for damages.

    22. Re:damage by arkhan_jg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No-one would have criticised them for withdrawing the books from new sales when they discovered they didn't actually have publishing rights for that book.

      They're angry that after a sale was completed, and with the slimmest of justifications from the EULA, they deleted books already sold - something just not possible with real books. Last I checked, people who purchase illegally copyrighted works are not held liable, it's the producer that's commited copyright infringement; though they may have them confiscated by the police if they 'should' have known the goods were infringing. What amazon should have done is stop sales, leave the copies sold already in place, then work with the copyright holder to recompense them for the copies already sold.

      Amazon acting like copyright cops after the sale, and on very iffy legal grounds - especially by destroying people's annotations - that damage to their reputation is done, and no amount of backtracking, apologising, or 'here, have it back' fixes it, for me.
      Who knows when they'll next decide to use a remote kill switch on what I've already paid for?

      This has long been one of the criticisms of ebooks and ereaders; DRM and the ability to retroactively render a purchase unusable. It's why I didn't buy a kindle, and seeing amazon so handily demonstrate their power, I'm amazed anyone with half a brain would willingly do so either.

      --
      Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
    23. Re:damage by oliderid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      From a simple customer fairness perspective, Amazon's customers purchased the book in good faith.

      And for potential buyers like me, the perspective is even simpler.

      • They can enter into my "computer" (kindle) anytime they wish.
      • They can delete any material they find offensive/inappropriate (for legal reasons or not) without asking me anything
      • And leave.

      Even my government hasn't such a power.

    24. Re:damage by khchung · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly.

      They have actually demonstrated that they have both the ability and the will to delete books from your kindle.

      It is no longer a hypothetical situation when people say "Amazon could delete books you have paid for on your Kindle". It is now a FACT that Amazon had deleted paid-for books on customers Kindle, and they could do it again if they wish to.

      This is the best example for showing what harm DRM could do from customers' point of view.

      No amount of apology or refund is going to cover this up, unless they publicly send out an update to all Kindle to disable this ability to delete books, and then they have to hope people actually believe it.

      --
      Oliver.
    25. Re:damage by selven · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, it's pro consumer! It allows Amazon to deliver high-value content!

    26. Re:damage by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How is paper copy a better option in that regard than, say, drm-free pdf copy?

    27. Re:damage by LordNimon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would rather see a software update that removes Amazon's ability to delete your books remotely. Until we get that, I have no interest in a Kindle.

      --
      And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
      To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
    28. Re:damage by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They refunded the purchase, but they could hardly turn around and knowingly redistribute illegal copies. I mean, you can rightfully criticize them for the original circumstance, but to be fair it may have taken them 2 months to acquire the rights to legally restore those copies.

      Leaving legally bought books that were illegally manufactured in existance doesn't break any laws. Deleting them does not reduce their legal liability (and probably did violate the law). They should have left them. They can acquire the rights to the books. They could buy them. They paid off the rights holder within hours of this happening. They did so by harming their customers. They should have left them in place until they came to the agreement they obviously managed to make eventually.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    29. Re:damage by maxwell+demon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you (the customer) purchase stolen goods then you can lose them without compensation as they are returned to their rightful owner.

      But even then, the seller cannot forcibly take it back from you. Only the police can.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    30. Re:damage by easyTree · · Score: 2, Informative

      Until we get that, I have no interest in a Kindle.

      Me either; I'm very happy with my iliad reader

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    31. Re:damage by Golddess · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When bookstores got in trouble selling Harry Potter books a day early, could you imagine them hiring goons to break into your house and revoke your copies

      Why yes, yes I can.

      (or at least a step in that direction).

      --
      "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
    32. Re:damage by ultranova · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somehow what Amazon actually did is considered being handled "poorly"?

      The mistake was in designing Kindle with the ability to "pull" material in the first place. I'm sticking to paper and text files for this exact reason. That the first already-published thing to vanish without a trace was 1984 is irony, dire warning and a giant big "fuck you serfs" all in one action.

      Heck, for all I know it could be some moral Amazon employee trying to make a point who made the decision. It's a rather big coincidence otherwise.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    33. Re:damage by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Amazon shouldn't have had an ability to remotely pull books in the first place. Would I want a book with a small lighter attached to it that could be remotely activated and the book would burn? Amazon should have simply paid the publisher the rights, or gave them another "legal" copy of 1984 that is virtually the same. Not only was the book erased but also the notes. So heres what should have happened:

      -Amazon removes the offending books from sale
      -Amazon offers to allow each customer to download a non-offending book but allows them to keep the offending book already on their Kindle
      -Everyone is happy

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    34. Re:damage by Cyberllama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe I addressed that point by pointing out that everyone and their mother has a Killswitch and nobody flips out about it. Apple being able to do it with iPhone apps was the example I used.

      I realize it's a bitter pill, but you just have to swallow with the knowledge that it'll probably be fine. If you want to hold a grudge against amazon, then I suppose you'll be holding a grudge against LOTS of companies and simply not buying anything electronic. So be it. Personally, I'd rather just get over it.

  2. Nice, but... by Kufat · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...this would make it better:
    "The new firmware update for the Kindle removes the remote deletion capability. We pledge [in some legally binding fashion] that this capability will never be reactivated."

    Unfortunately, I don't see that happening.

    1. Re:Nice, but... by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course not, it would be bad for business if they did that.

      George Orwell books like "1984" and "Animal Farm" deserve to be deleted because they cannot have customers drawing parallels from the books to their business model or even the way modern governments are run. But it was just a coincidence that those two books happened to be pulled and deleted.

      Amazon.com got caught and had to backpeddle and do some Public Relations and offer to restore the books or at least offer a discount.

      Anything to get people to forget that it is a DRM device with a backdoor in it to delete any book or file purchased from their store if the owners of the book or media decide to pull it from the market.

      After all Kindle owners weren't really using those rights and freedoms anyway, and now they have learned to love Amazon.com and the Kindle device that watches them as they read books and deletes any book for whatever reason.

      Me, I don't use Kindle devices for that reason, but I'm a crazy guy who cares about my rights and freedoms and expects that if I bought something not only do I legally own it, but the owner of the IP and company that sold it to me shouldn't be able to take it away from me. Silly me, and my paranoid rantings that consumers actually own what they buy and it shouldn't have a kill-switch on it to remove it.

      --
      Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  3. Nice gesture, but that's not what worries me by Wingfield · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would really like to see Amazon make a commitment to not allowing purchased e-books to ever be pulled from the e-book readers of it's customers. I would like for them to think of e-books like people think of physical books in terms of ownership. If a bookstore sells me an illegal or stolen copy of a book by mistake, they damn sure can't come into my house and take it back.

    1. Re:Nice gesture, but that's not what worries me by Anonymous+Cowar · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you buy a stolen stereo on the street, it can be confiscated by the government. Same for a stolen car, that's why we have chop shops that launder parts from stolen cars back out into the market. So, granted IP rights may be different than real world stuff (did anybody suffer harm because unauthorized copies were distributed? was anybody deprived of anything? don't quote anything in parentheses, or this sentence, this isn't what i'm here to discuss), if you are in possession of a stolen item, it can be confiscated. It looks like amazon was just trying to jump the gun and possibly assumed that the copies would equate to 'stolen'.

      Other side of the coin, let's say that these were just counterfeit copies. I.E. unauthorized copies of a protected item. I feel that this is closer to the truth. Current law says that it is NOT within the government's rights to seize a single counterfeit item if that is the only copy in your possession and you do not intend to sell it. That's why you never hear about a non-seller's collection of bootleg dvd's or fake-gucci purses being siezed. So had amazon realized that, it would have classified the re-seller as a digital counterfeiter and possibly resolved the matter by shutting off transfer rights (to another account, not another device within the account.)

    2. Re:Nice gesture, but that's not what worries me by StreetStealth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it's going to take more than even a firm "commitment" to fix the Kindle. The whole Kindle firmware needs to be redesigned so it's actually not possible for things to be remotely deleted. I know that may sound radical, but honestly, nothing less is going to cut it.

      If I sold you something that I later found out I wasn't supposed to, sneaked into your house to retrieve it, but ultimately offered to make it up to you, that's one thing. I made good, right?

      Now what if I kept the copy of your house key that I made to sneak in? Would you feel better if I assured you I won't use the key in the future unless you invite me over?

      --
      Your mind is clear / The things that you fear / Will fade with how much you / Believe what you hear
    3. Re:Nice gesture, but that's not what worries me by itsme1234 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you buy a stolen stereo on the street, it can be confiscated by the government. Same for a stolen car, that's why we have chop shops that launder parts from stolen cars back out into the market. So, granted IP rights may be different than real world stuff (did anybody suffer harm because unauthorized copies were distributed? was anybody deprived of anything? don't quote anything in parentheses, or this sentence, this isn't what i'm here to discuss), if you are in possession of a stolen item, it can be confiscated. It looks like amazon was just trying to jump the gun and possibly assumed that the copies would equate to 'stolen'.

      Other side of the coin, let's say that these were just counterfeit copies. I.E. unauthorized copies of a protected item. I feel that this is closer to the truth. Current law says that it is NOT within the government's rights to seize a single counterfeit item if that is the only copy in your possession and you do not intend to sell it. That's why you never hear about a non-seller's collection of bootleg dvd's or fake-gucci purses being siezed. So had amazon realized that, it would have classified the re-seller as a digital counterfeiter and possibly resolved the matter by shutting off transfer rights (to another account, not another device within the account.)

      I think the first problem is that while the government can (legally) do many things (from taking your goods to killing people) Amazon can't . After they sold you the stolen or fake or infringing or whatever goods they can't (legally) just reach to your computer/kindle and "correct" the mistake by helping themselves just because this is the way they designed the system.

      Plus I'm sick and tired of this DRM double dipping. Copyright gives rights not only to authors but also to customers AND all other people. With DRM authors are giving themselves technologically rights they don't have legally. Copyright owners don't have the legal right to stop you from selling your music collection. They don't have the right to take back what they sold to you. They don't have the right to prevent you from playing your US DVD in Europe. They don't have the right to forbid you to take small parts to use them in a research work (fair use). They don't have the right to kill your collection because they don't think maintaining the authentication servers is profitable for them (yes, Yahoo, Microsoft, Wallmart I'm looking at you). And above all they don't have the right to keep their creations from falling into public domain (although they are very close to their desired "forever less one day" in extending the copyright terms).

      Not that there's any chance in hell for this to happen but I vote to have any (legal) copyright protection removed for any material that has DRM. You, author, want to break the deal with customers and with general public by not giving them all the rights they have (via technological means). FINE. There's no deal then. No (legal) copyright protection for whatever DRMed crap you sell.

    4. Re:Nice gesture, but that's not what worries me by FireFury03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, in most cases, they do have a right to do all of those things that you mentioned...you just didn't read the license agreements.

      The parent was talking about the legally enshrined rights provided by the copyright legislation. Whatever the EULA says is pretty moot because there is no legal requirement for you to agree to an EULA.

      However, even if you were to assume that the consumer agrees to whatever licence they are presented with and that the licence is enforceable, you are still wrong: When I buy a DVD, I am never presented with a licence agreement - I go into the shop and say "I want to buy this DVD", hand over some money and get given the DVD in return. You cannot argue that this doesn't constitute the sale of the DVD (which would give me all the rights and restrictions granted by copyright law). Iff I were to go into the shop and say "I want to buy this DVD" and they said "you can't buy it, you can only licence the content, here's a licence for you to sign" then you could argue that I didn't buy the DVD and that I am therefore bound by the licence terms, but that never happens.

      --
      http://blog.nexusuk.org
  4. Annotations?? by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ... can now have it restored, apparently with annotations intact.

    Wait a second-- where are these annotations coming from? When they erased the text of the books from Kindles, they didn't erase the annotations, but apparently archived them somewhere?

    Does this imply that Amazon can remotely access (and read?) any private notes anybody makes using their Kindle?

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Annotations?? by Anonymous+Cowar · · Score: 5, Informative

      the annotations were stored elsewhere in the kindle but were rather worthless without the context provided by the nearby book-text. They could still be accessed, but weren't much good alone. I.E. you can talk about how This Passage would be good to discuss for My Paper, but without This Passage, your annotation is worthless. So now that the book is returned, hopefully it will be smart enough to tie the old annotation attached to This Passage with the corresponding This Passage in the new text.

  5. Scary that they can restore the annotations. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just how often do these Kindles phone home, anyway? And just EXACTLY what information do they send?

    1. Re:Scary that they can restore the annotations. by RedK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They don't restore the annotations. The annotations are still on the Kindle, except they're not tied to a book anymore. By restoring the book, the annotations are just linked back by the device. See the lawsuit about the guy who had taken notes on his kindle for a paper on 1984. He still has his notes, he just doesn't know what they are referring to without the book.

      --
      "Not to mention all the idiots who use words like boxen."
      Anonymous Coward on Monday August 04, @06:49PM
    2. Re:Scary that they can restore the annotations. by schwaang · · Score: 2, Informative

      In the "run ubuntu on a kindle" story, the guy said the kindle uploads syslogs twice a day. That's probably more about monitoring errors and basic usage than any individual tracking, I hope.

      It's a normal part of the kindle's operation to sync the last position read in your books. That's what lets you pick up where you left off on another device tied to the same account.

      So in theory they know how fast a reader you are, and more interestingly, they could see for any particular book if there are parts where a lot of readers get bogged down or give up at. No idea whether they keep any of those stats, or whether the privacy policy/TOS permit/allow that.

      It's also normal to backup to the cloud any annotations, but you can turn that feature off.

      It also has gps, and I have no idea whether it ever sends that back to amazon. But potentially it knows that sometimes I read in the bathroom.

      The thing that distinguishes the kindle from any other ereader I've seen is that it fully incorporates the cloud for downloading and backing up books, annotations, blog updates, etc. Which is really really cool, and also an honest potential threat to privacy.

  6. What the offer doesn't do by symbolset · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't remove their ability to delete the books you bought and paid for if they deem it necessary. This is different from buying a physical book in that generally to take the work away from you they have to come to where you're keeping it, preferably with guns.

    It doesn't remove the inherent unreliability of a system that can take away the content you've bought at any time. To resolve that you need a solution that doesn't involve DRM.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  7. Fuck you, Amazon. by MrMista_B · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Break into my device and delete a product that /I PAID FOR/, and then, months later, offer me a fucking coupon?

    Fuck you.

    1. Re:Fuck you, Amazon. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Break into my device and delete a product that /I PAID FOR/, refund the original purchase price, and then, months later, apologize and offer either a coupon , or a check for $30, or a restoration of the original product, in addition to the refund?

      Fixed that for you.

      Seriously, did you even read the summary? Amazon could have handled it better, yes, but the way they did handle it is hardly as bad as everyone's making it seem.

    2. Re:Fuck you, Amazon. by djmurdoch · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the title is justified by the first four words of the comment, "Break into my device". The rest is just details.

  8. The real reason they probably did it by mysidia · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It was coming to bite them in the a**... with a student suing them and everything.

    They finally realized they were getting widespread negative publicity, poorer reviews, more people recommending to stay away frmo kindle and get something else, and maybe, just maybe, it put a small dent in their sales.

    Enough for them to stand up and take notice...

    If it were just a few customers effected by the deletion and hasn't been widely publicized in the news, I have my doubts that Amazon would have ever done something to right the situation.

  9. Soooooo... by nanospook · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Who got fired?

    --
    Have you fscked your local propeller head today?
    1. Re:Soooooo... by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who got fired?

      Hopefully nobody. I've worked for companies that liked to fire people for making one mistake -- the air of paranoia was such that nobody was willing to do anything, for fear of screwing up and not being able to find someone else to blame. Companies that do that tend to stagnate until there's a culture shift or they go under (or get bought out, as with the place I worked).

  10. Too late... by SlothDead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I seriously considered buying a kindle from amazon. Sure, the technical possibility of remotely deleting my books irritated me in the beginning but I thought "Aw, amazon is such a nice company. Their customer service is excellent, they don't censor negative reviews... Surely I can trust them to never do that. And look, they explicitly said in the Terms of Service that they will never do that. So let's just quit being so paranoid and trust a company, just this time".

    Then they started to delete Orwell books and for me, a world broke down. Do you know this feeling, when you figure out, that a good friend of you has been lying to you? Well, that's how this digital book burning felt to me. It completely destroyed my trust in that company. And since amazon was my most trusted company, I now no longer trust any other company with ultimate online access to my devices.

    So, instead of buying a kindle I bought a simple chinese ereader without web access. Sure, it's not as pretty as a kindle, it has no wikipedia access and the poor translation of the manual starts with "For safely and efficiently use the product, please strictly abide by the rules, otherwise the danger will happen" but at least I know that nobody can take my ebooks away from me.

  11. The memory hole's still there... by comingstorm · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It doesn't matter how much they protest; it doesn't make the whole episode any less ironic. The more they promise they won't do it that way again unless they feel they have a legal right to, the more they point out the fact that they can delete your books (and modify them? and inspect notes? reading patterns? what else?) any time they really want to.

    The upshot is: they've demonstrated the presence of the memory hole and their ability and willingness to use it. They're sorry they got caught, and they'd like you to forget all about it and by yourself a Kindle.

  12. $30 is nice by gooman · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would have suggested $19.84

    --
    "Kittens give Morbo gas!"
  13. Re:Wait, what?! by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Doesn't this mean that Amazon has backed up every single Kindle? Presumably if you tried hard enough after losing your Kindle you could get all your books back...

    Mod parent "+1 so innocent it's funny". Amazon can have their own copy of all the material (for archival and backup) if they want. They can also keep a list of all the things they sold you. Then they don't have to "back it up" to restore it. The reason they won't restore it is because then they can charge you for the same material all over again. You have no legal come back; giving you back your stuff isn't in your contract. This is exactly what the point of the DRM is. It gives them power; it takes away your power and rights.

    --
    =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  14. Refund is worthless -- are they going to fix it? by k8to · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So when are they changing the firmware so that deletes always require a user-interface confirmation?

    It's the right fix. It still allows refunds, the user just has to manually acquiesce to the deletion on the kindle itself.
    It's not like this changes amazon's ability to be sure the delete happened.
    The firmware would be just as secure or insecure with the change.

    --
    -josh
  15. Re:The lesson here is. by easyTree · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The sharing of ideas is necissary for evolution to continue.

    This is the key for me; rapid exchange of ideas is leading to a global increase in consciousness; this makes us more difficult to subdue/control - therefore, an all-out attack on sharing under one guise or another.

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  16. Public domain content here. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'm not sure the same is true if you purchase goods which infringe copyright.

    In this case, I'm not sure how copyright comes into it, since the books concerned are clearly derivative works. The original text of both books is now well and truly available in the public domain, and in fact are available in clear text at Project Gutenberg here and here.

    All you would be paying for is someone else's annotations.

    1. Re:Public domain content here. by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Informative

      They are public domain in Australia, but not the US. Copyright in Australia expires 50 years after the author's death, in this case 21st January 2000. In the US, it won't expire until 70 years after the author's death, which is 21st January 2020. Most likely the copyright term will have been extended again by that time, so it won't actually expire.

  17. Re:The lesson here is. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If over 50% of their 2 million employees have no health insurance and average an income of just $1100 per month, that puts almost their entire work force near poverty levels relying on all us other wealthier taxpayers to foot the bill for their medical expenses.

    Uhuh. And if there was no Walmart? They might *not having a job at all*. Furthermore, for all those people who *don't* work at Walmart while living on a low income, Walmart has made it possible for them to fund a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise affort, which is a *good* thing. But, of course, you're too blinded in your irrational hatred to consider that Walmart *might* just have some positive effects on the economy.

    That is kind of a callous position considering many have little choice because WalMart put local competitors out of business through their cutthroat pricing and megachain distribution agreements.

    Uhuh. And those local competitors? a) You have absolutely no evidence proving they would've paid more or provided a better health plan... and in the current economy, the precise opposite would've likely been true, with local businesses firing people or putting them part-time, and cutting or reducing health benefits b) Wouldn't hire as many people as Walmart does, c) Charged higher prices, thus making it more difficult for those poor people you're so worried about to actually support their standard of living.

    Thus, in the end, for a local person living near the poverty line, at worst, Walmart is basically a wash... the trade off is a possibly lower salary for definitely lower prices.

    I know you're apathetic to the situation because well hell, this is just the way capitalism works right?

    Apathetic? No, of course not. I happen to believe that Walmart, while not a perfect corporate citizen, is a net positive force for the economy. They hire millions and they act to stifle inflation by keeping prices down. For the poor that you seem so very deeply concerned with, that's a positive thing, not a negative one.

  18. Rule of law by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > In essence, they shipped out stolen property.

    1) It wasn't stolen property
    1.1) If a shopping mall finds out that a shop (in the mall) is selling stolen property even if it has the physical ability (mall guards etc) to go to buyer's houses, take the stuff and return it to the original owners, it does not have the legal right to do it. The mall should report it to the relevant authorities so that appropriate action can be taken. The mall could tell the shop they cannot operate in the mall, and they might be sued by the mall too for breach of contract (doing illegal stuff) etc.

    2) If a shopping mall finds out that a shop is illegally copying software/music for customers, even if it has the technical ability to delete the material from the buyer's computers it does not have the legal right to do it.

    Who does the Kindle belong to? Amazon or the user? If it's the user's then what Amazon might be illegal in many countries - it would breach computer misuse acts or antihacking laws.

    And even if it belongs to Amazon and is just rented to the user, the Courts might not agree that Amazon has complete and utter control over the kindle. There are limits to what landlords can do to their tenants and the rented property. Same goes for rented cars. Or even repossessing cars.

    If people are fine with Corporations doing what Amazon did, then they are frogs being slowly boiled. Eventually the Corporations may extend their powers to more domains and the precious constitutions and laws of various countries would effectively be irrelevant. They may not succeed at first but they will keep on trying (after all the end result is very profitable for them).

    What good is a constitutional right to freedom of speech if EVERY place (even the house you rent) is owned by a Corporation that only allows you to stay if you don't say or do certain things, and everyone believes that since the Corporations own it the Corporations can do whatever they want to it.

    --