Amazon Remotely Deletes 1984 From Customers' Kindles

[Broomstick]

I think that, from a PR perspective, that notifying the customers prior to the deletion might have prevented much upset. Some of the complaints seem to stem as much from the sudden and unexplained disappearance of something purchased as anything else. Perhaps a note sent saying "We're sorry, but this illegal thing happened and we have to correct it. We apologize for the inconvenience and have refunded your money" might have gone a long way to prevent hard feelings. Or a news release.

A refund you say?

An Amazon spokesman, Drew Herdener, said in an e-mail message that the books were added to the Kindle store by a company that did not have rights to them, using a self-service function. “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,”

OK, did they TELL the customers the money was refunded, or were the customers supposed to guess? If I wake up one morning and something is missing from one of my computing devices my first impulse is not necessarily going to be to check my bank balance - so how would I know, and how long would it take me to find out?

[aerius]

I'd say the best that Amazon could do, assuming the rights holders would allow it is to send out a notice giving everyone a week to save any doodles or whatever they've made in the works in question, after which the works get deleted and the customers refunded. But maybe the rights holder said "do it now or we'll sue your fucking asses", who knows?

The situation wasn't handled perfectly, and maybe there was no better way, but it could be a hell of a lot worse.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The situation wasn't handled perfectly, and maybe there was no better way, but it could be a hell of a lot worse.

They could, for example, choose to delete books that their CEO politically disapproves of. Something that they haven't denied they would do. Or they could start pulling books and replacing them with versions edited as they see fit, for another example.

If I buy a book, it's mine. I have no interest in "buying" a book that I effectively don't own, and can be deleted or modified as someone else sees fit. Amazon has succeeded in convincing me that I never, ever want a Kindle; I'll just go to a bookstore and buy books that are actually mine instead.

[Lord of the Abyss]

If I buy a book, it's mine.

Not under the law, it isn't, at least not with a digital copy.

Which is a good reason to not bother with a digital version of, well, anything if you can get a real one. It's an argument against using Kindle or anything like it.

Behold the reason why corporations can run wild and screw over anyone they like. Someone gets screwed by a corporation ? It's their fault !

If you don't like the terms of the license, then don't agree to them.

That assumes that someone, somewhere will come up with a version I like. If a corporation CAN screw you over, it WILL; that's the nature of the beast. Saying that I can just go off and be a hermit ( which is in essence what you are saying ) isn't an argument that the present setup is a good one.

I can see going wild if there was any kind of coercion used at all (for example, if you don't sign it, you don't get a job or something like that), but there isn't.

Of course there was coercion; they unilaterally deleted a product people had chosen to buy. And deleted that guy's notes, and probably those of other people. How is that not coercive ?

[Stark]

Are you fucking serious? You're a) surprised online controlled account based devices like this allow this sort of thing, then b) whine about how OMG TEH LICENCE? There's a dimple solution fir people like you.

Don't buy one.

Oh noes, because they followed the law to ensure their emerging digitalbook marketplace gets support from publishers THE ARE NAZIS EDITIN MAH BOOKS.

Fucking Jesus. I don't really own my Saints Row FLC either. Volition could change it WHENEVER THE WANT WAAASAH.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Are you fucking serious? You're a) surprised online controlled account based devices like this allow this sort of thing, then b) whine about how OMG TEH LICENCE? There's a dimple solution fir people like you.

Don't buy one.

Which is exactly what I said I would do.

Oh noes, because they followed the law to ensure their emerging digitalbook marketplace gets support from publishers THE ARE NAZIS EDITIN MAH BOOKS.

Fucking Jesus. I don't really own my Saints Row FLC either. Volition could change it WHENEVER THE WANT WAAASAH.

And have they ? Rave incoherently all you like; you are ignoring the fact that Amazon has already demonstrated the ability and willingness to do exactly what I worry about them doing. Why should I assume that they will stop ?

[Darth Mall]

They could, for example, choose to delete books that their CEO politically disapproves of. Something that they haven't denied they would do. Or they could start pulling books and replacing them with versions edited as they see fit, for another example.

Except that none of those situations would have anything to do with what happened. But wait, oh no, the evil corporations! Because respecting someones copyright always leads to political censure.

And just because they haven't denied it means they will do it. I'm sure they haven't denied that the kindle won't give you blow jobs, because there is no reason someone would think that.

If I buy a book, it's mine. I have no interest in "buying" a book that I effectively don't own, and can be deleted or modified as someone else sees fit. Amazon has succeeded in convincing me that I never, ever want a Kindle; I'll just go to a bookstore and buy books that are actually mine instead.

Actually, if you were to buy a book that had been stolen, and somehow the police traced it to you, it would defiantly be seized from you and returned to the original owner. All you would be able to do is then sue the thief for your money back. And if he had spent all his money on hookers and blow? To bad.

[General Zod]

Are you fucking serious? You're a) surprised online controlled account based devices like this allow this sort of thing, then b) whine about how OMG TEH LICENCE? There's a dimple solution fir people like you.

Don't buy one.

Which is exactly what I said I would do.

Oh noes, because they followed the law to ensure their emerging digitalbook marketplace gets support from publishers THE ARE NAZIS EDITIN MAH BOOKS.

Fucking Jesus. I don't really own my Saints Row FLC either. Volition could change it WHENEVER THE WANT WAAASAH.

And have they ? Rave incoherently all you like; you are ignoring the fact that Amazon has already demonstrated the ability and willingness to do exactly what I worry about them doing. Why should I assume that they will stop ?

You worry about Amazon upholding copyright laws? LOL if so. Does Amazon have a history of this? Or is this just more paranoid nonsense?

As far as not buying one over this, that's ridiculous. There's plenty of other legitimate reasons not to buy a Kindle, like the fact that they're ridiculously overpriced.

[DPDarkPrimus]

If I buy a book, it's mine.

If you buy an illegal copy of a book, it's yours, but it can still be taken away from you and destroyed (without you being reimbursed) legally.

[Aeolus]

If he bought the book in good faith from a legitimate retailer then actually they couldn't just seize the book. even if he bought the book from some goon on the street who clearly stole it the police are the ones who would have to take it back and then only after getting the appropriate warrants. The local bookstore could not send their own people to break into your house and take back the book.

[Stark]

Duh.

Lucky they didn't give a real copy hey? Amusingly, if you had bought one and it was found to be stolen and they COULD, they'd stop the shipping and refund you. In this case, they never gave you anything (only ACCESS to ONLINE data controlled through the Kindle software) it's trivial to stop people reading something by simply rejecting the licence so they couldn't read it even if they DID still have the raw data.

But hey, chest-thumping 'I bought a book gimme gimme' nonsense is par for the course. It's actually sad that hysterical idiots are more concerned about such selfish nonsense and not the fact that Amazon had a space for others to sell ebooks that they didn't bother examining too closely and thus the entire corporation was party to a crime. I don't doubt now that they'll implement a careful vetting process which will get shrill idiots complaining about how long i takes to get something approved and available.

[Lord of the Abyss]

They could, for example, choose to delete books that their CEO politically disapproves of. Something that they haven't denied they would do. Or they could start pulling books and replacing them with versions edited as they see fit, for another example.

Except that none of those situations would have anything to do with what happened. But wait, oh no, the evil corporations! Because respecting someones copyright always leads to political censure.

The point isn't copyright; the point is them destroying data people paid for, and as much as admitting they'd do it again. You are talking as if censorship by companies is something unusual. And the fact that copyright more and more is used as an excuse to screw people over and provide bad service is not an argument in it's favor.

And just because they haven't denied it means they will do it. I'm sure they haven't denied that the kindle won't give you blow jobs, because there is no reason someone would think that.

They used the same kind of weasel words a corporation always uses when it intends to do the same damned thing but doesn't want to admit it. And they haven't denied the the Kindle will give blow jobs because it can't; don't be an idiot.

If I buy a book, it's mine. I have no interest in "buying" a book that I effectively don't own, and can be deleted or modified as someone else sees fit. Amazon has succeeded in convincing me that I never, ever want a Kindle; I'll just go to a bookstore and buy books that are actually mine instead.

Actually, if you were to buy a book that had been stolen, and somehow the police traced it to you, it would defiantly be seized from you and returned to the original owner. All you would be able to do is then sue the thief for your money back. And if he had spent all his money on hookers and blow? To bad.

Except that this isn't theft. And if I bought a book that had been printed in copyright violation, I seriously doubt that the bookstore would send people to break into my home and grab it.

If I buy a book, it's mine.

If you buy an illegal copy of a book, it's yours, but it can still be taken away from you and destroyed (without you being reimbursed) legally.

But a book store doesn't insist on planting incendiaries in every copy they sell so they can destroy it remotely.

Duh.

Lucky they didn't give a real copy hey? Amusingly, if you had bought one and it was found to be stolen and they COULD, they'd stop the shipping and refund you. In this case, they never gave you anything (only ACCESS to ONLINE data controlled through the Kindle software) it's trivial to stop people reading something by simply rejecting the licence so they couldn't read it even if they DID still have the raw data.

But hey, chest-thumping 'I bought a book gimme gimme' nonsense is par for the course. It's actually sad that hysterical idiots are more concerned about such selfish nonsense and not the fact that Amazon had a space for others to sell ebooks that they didn't bother examining too closely and thus the entire corporation was party to a crime. I don't doubt now that they'll implement a careful vetting process which will get shrill idiots complaining about how long i takes to get something approved and available.

Why would they bother ? They can just keep yanking people's books. And you are also wrong in how the machines work and in what was down; the books are downloaded into the Kindle, not online. And they erased that data, and the data that people had added as well. But of course, they are mere customers and not an all-important corporation, so they don't count.

[Stark]

Okay, so got any evidence? They used a publicly known feature of the system to perform a legally-required act due to book piracy. None of this OMG EDITIN MAH BOOKZ nonsense. You really sound like a hysterical nut.

That you think that the books being downloaded makes a difference shows how stupid you are. It's OBVIOUSLY controlled through the software, you retard, because THEY SENT A DELETE XYZ COMMAND. How do you think that works?

It's particularly hilarious that you seem to think it's terrible that they deleted 'the data people had added'. Who the fuck uses annotations on an ebook reader for anything serious? Amusingly the annotations are probably still in there, but inaccessible due to the logical structure.

Your pathetic styling of this as an evil corp vs innocent people thing is fucking sad. People whinge about this shit every time they don't understand how this kind of distribution works. The only thing I'd expect any corporation to have changed would have been to send a mail around first letting everyone know what's going on, but it's likely the legal team said 'holy shit liability' and pressed the button. So what? You're even too stupid to actually talk about the actual issues invovled (ie, how obviously pirate content was allowed into the system in the first place) to rant about how the company IS OUT FOR PROFITZZZ by removing an illegally sold item from a system they control.

What's funny? You can just get 1984 elsewhere. As far as I know Kindles allow you to use feedbooks etc, so it's trivial to replace it and really people who bought it were kinda dumb.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Okay, so got any evidence? They used a publicly known feature of the system to perform a legally-required act due to book piracy. None of this OMG EDITIN MAH BOOKZ nonsense. You really sound like a hysterical nut.

That you think that the books being downloaded makes a difference shows how stupid you are. It's OBVIOUSLY controlled through the software, you retard, because THEY SENT A DELETE XYZ COMMAND. How do you think that works?

It's particularly hilarious that you seem to think it's terrible that they deleted 'the data people had added'. Who the fuck uses annotations on an ebook reader for anything serious? Amusingly the annotations are probably still in there, but inaccessible due to the logical structure.

Your pathetic styling of this as an evil corp vs innocent people thing is fucking sad. People whinge about this shit every time they don't understand how this kind of distribution works. The only thing I'd expect any corporation to have changed would have been to send a mail around first letting everyone know what's going on, but it's likely the legal team said 'holy shit liability' and pressed the button. So what? You're even too stupid to actually talk about the actual issues invovled (ie, how obviously pirate content was allowed into the system in the first place) to rant about how the company IS OUT FOR PROFITZZZ by removing an illegally sold item from a system they control.

What's funny? You can just get 1984 elsewhere. As far as I know Kindles allow you to use feedbooks etc, so it's trivial to replace it and really people who bought it were kinda dumb.

My, you really are quite the corporate toady, aren't you ? One long semi-coherent rant about how the people who got screwed are all stupid and how nothing is the company's fault. And the book wasn't "pirated"; it's public domain everywhere but here in America, and it came from a Canadian company. It's interesting how one way your concern is; it's of vital importance that they erase 1984 to protect the all-important extended copyright, yet the college student's data is unworthy of consideration.

And the only reason the data being in the Kindle is important, is because you said that it wasn't.

[Stark]

LOL

Man, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? You whinge about 'corporate toadies' after busting out totally baseless slippery-slope bullshit without a shred of evidence. You've even now totally abandoned all your bullshit shrieking, just concentrating on this ridiculous 'some idiot did something stupid and lost his data' crap. Amazing! Deleting that data somehow profited Amazon! AND THEY'D DO IT AGAIN TOO!

Sorry if my attempt to explain to you how licenced digital distribution works was a bit over your head. Kindles buy licences, not books; you are granted access and use to the data, you don't 'own' the data, you own the ACCESS to the data. Doubtless the manual clearly states that this access can be revoked, don't use the annotation system for important work you're too stupid to back up, don't put your credit card details in there in case we decide to steal it, etc. Of course, Kindles ALSO work with other ebook formats, so you can just get shit from free sites like Gutenberg, freebooks, etc, and BIG BAD EV0L AMAZON won't have to mildly inconvenience people to enforce it's terms of service.

The best part is you think understanding how legal decisions are made in the digital distribution marketplace translates as 'one way concern' to tinfoil hat idiots like you. No, I don't care about some shithead who lost his stupid data, and no, I don't think Amazon did anything wrong (certianly not actionable) and all they should have done better is have better communication and better vetting of the marketplace beforehand. It's up to you to prove your ridiculous edit/censor/steal/profit nonsense is anything but butthurt drivel.

[Julhelm]

This is probably the first time they've had to deal with this particular situation, so of course they're not going to have streamlined routines in place for dealing with it.

[Lord of the Abyss]

Man, how can you expect anyone to take you seriously? You whinge about 'corporate toadies' after busting out totally baseless slippery-slope bullshit without a shred of evidence.

My evidence is what they've already done. You expect me to produce something more for a future hypothetical ?

You've even now totally abandoned all your bullshit shrieking, just concentrating on this ridiculous 'some idiot did something stupid and lost his data' crap. Amazing! Deleting that data somehow profited Amazon! AND THEY'D DO IT AGAIN TOO!

I never claimed they profited by it, or "shrieked" for that matter. The person "shrieking" here is you.

Sorry if my attempt to explain to you how licenced digital distribution works was a bit over your head.

No; you simply said something erroneous.

Kindles buy licences, not books; you are granted access and use to the data, you don't 'own' the data, you own the ACCESS to the data. Doubtless the manual clearly states that this access can be revoked, don't use the annotation system for important work you're too stupid to back up, don't put your credit card details in there in case we decide to steal it, etc.

And you just have faith that it does, eh ? And according to Wikipedia ( yeah, yea, fount of all evil but It's not like I own a manual ) "Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use." Which sure doesn't sound like "we can erase it any time we feel like it".

The best part is you think understanding how legal decisions are made in the digital distribution marketplace translates as 'one way concern' to tinfoil hat idiots like you. No, I don't care about some shithead who lost his stupid data, and no, I don't think Amazon did anything wrong (certianly not actionable) and all they should have done better is have better communication and better vetting of the marketplace beforehand.

In other words, your concern is indeed one way and you are indeed the corporate toady I called you.

[Stark]

My evidence is what they've already done. You expect me to produce something more for a future hypothetical ?

No, evidence that your shrill whining is anything but. Y'know, how they just did a thing that really makes sense, and not this censor/edit/evil villian nonsense you're going on about? That.

I never claimed they profited by it, or "shrieked" for that matter. The person "shrieking" here is you.

LOL! I'm not shrieking buddy, I'm laughing my ass off at how hilarious your flailing is. Clearly evil corporations are motivated by profit right? That's why they trammel on the rights of the individual?

No; you simply said something erroneous.

You mean the part where the marketplace/Kindle integration and licencing means you don't actually buy a book at all? They even mendaciously call it 'Digital Content' in the stuff YOU quoted!

And you just have faith that it does, eh ? And according to Wikipedia ( yeah, yea, fount of all evil but It's not like I own a manual ) "Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use." Which sure doesn't sound like "we can erase it any time we feel like it".

LOL! I hear quoting a single bit of a manual (which will have literally pages of legal mumbo jumbo) from wiki = CONCLUSIVE PROOF AMAZON BROKE THEIR TERMS OF SERVICE. What you don't get - because you're an idiot - is if they DID break their terms of service, this WOULD be an actual serious thing. That's how the law works, and not OMG DELETED = EVIL as simpleminded people might think.

In other words, your concern is indeed one way and you are indeed the corporate toady I called you.

You're so funny. My point is that IT'S A GIANT RED HERRING. You're attacking me and my personal motives to invalidate my statements and I'm proud to state them because a) they're irrelevant and b) pretending they are relevant is against the rules.

So, I'm not seeing where you've proven a) what Amazon did was wrong beyond a bit rude or b) proven they'll continue to do so, eventually editing or censoring books until CEOs have complete control. I'm impressed that now on page three you've started with actual evidence instead of bleating. If someone could track down the actual ToS and it could be examined (I believe Hav owns a Kindle, for example) we could actually talk about whether they have done something dishonest or merely something inconvenient.

And not, y'know, listening to you harp on about evil corporations invading my personal freedoms.

[JointStrikeFighter]

And you just have faith that it does, eh ? And according to Wikipedia ( yeah, yea, fount of all evil but It's not like I own a manual ) "Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use." Which sure doesn't sound like "we can erase it any time we feel like it".

OH LOOK! AMAZON CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! Turns out it said so right in the EULA.

[TheLostVikings]

And you just have faith that it does, eh ? And according to Wikipedia ( yeah, yea, fount of all evil but It's not like I own a manual ) "Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use." Which sure doesn't sound like "we can erase it any time we feel like it".

OH LOOK! AMAZON CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! Turns out it said so right in the EULA.

Yeah that was how I read it too: we allow you to do x/y/Z, but only when it's authorized by us. And when they decide to revoke that authorization? Then you're up shit creek without a paddle.

[Beowulf]

And you just have faith that it does, eh ? And according to Wikipedia ( yeah, yea, fount of all evil but It's not like I own a manual ) "Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use." Which sure doesn't sound like "we can erase it any time we feel like it".

OH LOOK! AMAZON CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT! Turns out it said so right in the EULA.

Look, a retard that can't read! That phrasing allows you to read "Digital Content" on things other than a Kindle, such as through a Kindle App on your iPhone.

The correct part to highlight is: "non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy", which means that other people can have copies, and the copy that you own a license to is "permanent". Which to most people means that it can't be revoked.

[Stark]

They'll just spin that as that since the product wasn't legal for sale in the US, obviously these terms don't apply.

Do you really think 'non-exclusive' means 'give your mates copies'? Wouldn't that crush their own business model as people just put up Amazon-purchased ebooks for download? Is it a reference to the Kindle's wireless silliness and Zune-like limited features?

[Simon_Jester]

Yeah that was how I read it too: we allow you to do x/y/Z, but only when it's authorized by us. And when they decide to revoke that authorization? Then you're up shit creek without a paddle.

I think this is a reason not to buy a Kindle.

If I buy a book in good faith from a known and respected vendor, I want the assurance that the vendor won't decide to yank the book back. I don't really care if I'm "buying the right to read the book" and not "buying the book." I don't particularly respect that argument, and I don't particularly respect anyone who demands that I agree to those terms.

The fact that the vendor is yanking the book to avoid being sued for their own incompetence doesn't make me approve of the yanking. I understand why they did it, but the fact that they can do so without notifying me in advance bothers me. I recognize that I don't have a right to use their service as I please- but the conditions they place on their service convince me not to pay for it.

[Stark]

Apparently this book was made available by a third-party seller (like the Amazon marketplace) and they didn't bother to check beforehand what the legality was. Thus, they realised they'd be facilitating illegal sales from a third party and pulled it. Their procedures are clearly broken (since it's pretty easy to check this shit before you allow the item to be shown to customers).

Your second paragraph makes no sense. You understand why they had to do it legally/commercially, but your offense at not being told is more important. What if it turned out the book was ACTUALLY child porn? What if they found that out - it's illegal too. Would you say it's wrong for them to use their control to correct this crime they have facilitated? It 'convince me not to pay for it' because they do things to illegal books? PARANOIA LOL.

What people like Abyss are too stupid to realise is the second Amazon does something not driven by law - ie, revoking licences at random, editing books, whatever - everyone will know and actually care. It'll be reported just like this, except instead of the only tragedy being some idiot who lost his work, it'll be an actual big deal. Hell, just don't buy third-party offerings.

[phongn]

Do you really think 'non-exclusive' means 'give your mates copies'? Wouldn't that crush their own business model as people just put up Amazon-purchased ebooks for download? Is it a reference to the Kindle's wireless silliness and Zune-like limited features?

Uh, I don't think Beowulf thinks it means that.