var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

Wolzard

July 17, 2009 10:56 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

I'd say one big misunderstanding. I'm sure Amazon would have loved to let everyone keep the already downloaded books, but odds are it would have just opened up a whole can of worms with *someone*, either MobileReference or Amazon, keeping the money for selling property they never should have sold to begin with.

You can place the blame anywhere you want- Amazon for doing this, Mobile for uploading the ebooks, etc. However, at the end of the day, I do trust Amazon's word in saying that it was a rare event, and likely necessary. I've interacted with their customer service plenty of times, this definately does not seem the type of thing they'd do unless they had no choice.

12 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Deranged_Kitsune

July 18, 2009 8:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Wolzard:
The whole stink isn't about the refund or the recall; that would be fine and understandable.

It's about the fact that Amazon removed copies of the books that customers had in their possession without warning or notification before the fact. That they can go through your library themselves and amend its contents is disturbing to most people who are still used to the fact that \"I give you money, I get item, item is now mine to do with as I please\" is not the principle that Amazon operates under with their ebooks.

Between this and the whole undisclosed limited downloads thing that came up a few weeks ago showcasing the abusive power of DRM (and, really, I think those examples are precisely the reasons corporations wanted DRM in place in this form in the first place) many consumers are finally getting scared enough to wake up to that reality.

$\"user-pic\"$

outlulz

July 18, 2009 1:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Wolzard: Not to mention there's no benefit to a company acting this way. Amazon and the publisher loses 100% of their profits by doing this. People are raising a big stink about this and DRM and blah blah blah but honestly, why would a company pull it's product and give every customer a complete refund unless it HAD to?

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 18, 2009 1:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Wolzard: Kindle: $299; Greyscale; Loads PDFs slowly; Zooms out most PDFs, requiring awkward reading; Great Battery Life;

Netbook: $249.99 and up; Loads PDFs fast; Runs PDFs in actual PC PDF Reader; Good Battery Life

I think the choice is clear. Considering there isn't much difference in size, and that the netbook can do alot more in addition to being an E-Book reader. I bought a Sony E-Book reader a while back. Screen cracked sitting on my desk (apparently it was too cold in my house while I was away). Sony wouldn't fix it. It cost me more than a netbook would have and was damaged in an absurd way (my laptop which was also sitting on the desk survived without so much as a peep and I am still using it over a year later).

$\"user-pic\"$

Patrick Henry

July 17, 2009 11:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

People like you are the reason 1984 and Animal Farm exist. So you read it and learn not to just eat whatever big government or big corporation feeds you.

For everyone else complaining, DO something about it. Stop paying full price for a stupid Ebook and BUY THE ACTUAL BOOK. You'll be able to resell it, save it, loan it to others. People who buy a kindle are just selfish jerks who want to look important with the latest technology.

Fine, enjoy your overpriced device that will break in a year. Yes, keep your ebooks for you alone! I wouldn't have any problem with the kindle if you could buy books for 99c. But you don't.

Anyone who uses ebook readers as they currently are is part of the problem.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 2:38 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Patrick Henry: Oh PUH-LEEZE. You sound like the people who screamed when the printing press allowed people to own copies of books. Just because Amazon handled this situation poorly doesn't mean there is anything wrong with the technology or with the people who enjoy digital books. Your fear and anger are misdirected.

$\"user-pic\"$

Patrick Henry

July 20, 2009 4:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

There's nothing wrong with enjoying digital books or readers. The problem is paying FULL PRICE for a digital copy which gives you no rights of ownership, when you could OWN an actual copy and get the ownership PLUS the added resale of it.

I would be all for this technology if publishers let people buy the digital copy for .99c instead of 7.99$. I cannot fathom paying full price to cover printing costs when you could pay for a book with more benefits.

Having huge bookshelves full of books you have read once isn't pretentious. Some people like being surrounded by books. it's relaxing. It's no different than carrying around a kindle full of books you'll never read, minus the portability.

$\"user-pic\"$

madog

July 17, 2009 11:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Patrick Henry: While I would never purchase a Kindle, it is not just for jerks who want to look important. There is a benefit to being able to have anywhere-access to numerous books at once. I think it's more pretentious for people to have huge bookshelves in their home full of books they will never read again.

The idea is great, but so far the execution and inclusion of DRM is poor.

$\"user-pic\"$

doctor_cos wants you to remain calm

July 18, 2009 10:41 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madog: I have bookshelves (not huge though) full of books. I read (most of) them over and over again.
I don't own a Kindle because I don't want to have to buy (lease?) another copy of things I already own.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 10:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Or that you could buy for 50 cents at a garage sale, and keep forever if you are so inclined.

Heh, I have tons of books too. I need to catalog them because some are old and hard to find. I would need a list if ever I had to replace them.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 11:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Patrick Henry: THIS, and be sure to tell Amazon that you won't go near a device with these kinds of features, and that you find the takeback sleazy.

$\"user-pic\"$

chrylis

July 17, 2009 11:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Patrick Henry: Anyone who uses the Kindle. (I have an iRex ebook reader that's actually a complete little Linux tablet computer, and I love it.)

$\"user-pic\"$

dwasifar

July 17, 2009 11:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Wolzard: \"...likely necessary.\"

Necessary??

What if they had sold you a print copy of a book and later discovered that the publisher didn't have the rights in order? Would it be \"necessary\" for Amazon to enter your home and retrieve it?

Under those circumstances Amazon's legal recourse would be to recover any infringement costs from the publisher, not go playing indian-giver with their customers. The product was purchased in good faith. If Amazon wants it back, they would have to go through due process, not just come and confiscate it. They are not the law, and it's outrageous to just sit back and say \"oh, it's necessary\" when something like this happens.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 7:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dwasifar: Actually, the publisher might well request (without enforcement mechanism) that the possessors of such unlicensed print books destroy them. That happens with advanced reading copies/review copies when an issue comes up.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 7:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@floraposte: I would think that advanced reading copies/review copies would be given with a contract or some sort of legal agreement like an NDA that might allow something like that to be enforced.

With this case, did the customers sign any legal document allowing Amazon to delete content from purchasers' Kindles at their whim?

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 11:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dwasifar: I couldn't have said it any better myself. Even though I purchase quite a lot from Amazon and have had no major problems with them over the years I am at odds over what they did.

If there had been a court order to take back what they've already sold I could better understand it. But that didn't happen, as far as I know.

$\"user-pic\"$

madog

July 17, 2009 11:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@dwasifar: Another reason why DRM in no way benefits the consumer in the long run or in the grand scale of things.

You do not actually own own the item. Plain and simple.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 12:00 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madog: I have NEVER and will NEVER purchase anything that is encumbered by DRM unless I already have a way in place to remove it. As far as the Kindle is concerned I will NEVER purchase it no matter if it didn't have DRM simply because I feel the cost of the eBooks are a rip-off.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 4:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Bogart's Falcon aka Philly Falcon:

The DVR is a \"DRM-entangled\" device that I accept. That's about it for me.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 12:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DaveDidNotPay: Even if the DRM could be stripped off of the eBooks of the Kindle (I'm not sure if it can or can't) I still would not purchase it because of the high price of the eBooks.

I'm not suggesting that no one should purchase them. It's just not for me.

$\"user-pic\"$

madog

July 18, 2009 1:24 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Bogart's Falcon aka Philly Falcon: The point I was making is that the Kindle is a good idea in it's purest form. I'm not trying to promote it or force it down anyones throat.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 2:42 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madog: I also agree that e-books are a good idea and have their place. I would enjoy a Kindle-type medium for many of the textbooks I must use for my classes, and most certainly for the majority of the magazines I read. Why kill more trees? The technology is ever-developing and the business end of it will evolve as well. Don't judge the technology by its seller.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 3:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@WorldHarmony: What would you do if you bought an e-book textbook @ $100 or $200 dollars this year and then next year you need to reference it and the publisher has changed something in it and told Amazon to remove old copies from purchasers Kindles? And to top it off, there's no replacement textbook that you can re-purchase after they've given you the purchase price back (just like 1984 & Animal Farm). What are you going to do without that reference when you need it at that moment for your class? And what about all those notations you've made; they're gone right along with your ebook; not so with a physical book. At least with physical item, you could retrieve the information from the book at any time regardless of what new issues of it the publisher has since released from the time of your purchase. I like the idea of ebooks a LOT, I just loathe the idea that an entity can alter and/or remove items I've paid for at any time without notice and for any reason they deem acceptable to them. Great, you're giving me my money back but that still doesn't make up for the fact that you've invaded my personal space and belongings and caused me to have doubts about any and all future purchases. Remove the DRM and I'd be the first one standing in line to own a Kindle!!! I don't want to be a slave to an ebook reader (I'm already one to iTunes by default and don't have the money to remove the DRM on all my previously purchased music and there's been no removal of the DRM on movies and TV shows purchased via iTunes).

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 2:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@madog: \"I'm not trying to promote it or force it down anyones throat.\"

I didn't think you were doing either one. I was just saying how I felt about it. I don't like DRM or the Kindle.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

TinaBringMeTheAx

July 17, 2009 10:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's just too, too perfect that the books were 1984 and Animal Farm.

Would this have been such a big deal if the deleted books had been \"Eat, Cheat, and Melt the Fat Away by Suzanne Somers?\"

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 3:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TinaBringMeTheAx: Indeed, it would still be a huge deal, just not as ironic.

$\"user-pic\"$

kc2idf

July 19, 2009 8:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TinaBringMeTheAx: The part I don't understand is this . . .

NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR IS ON PROJECT GUTENBERG!

$\"user-pic\"$

GirlCat

July 18, 2009 10:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TinaBringMeTheAx: Sure, you say that now, but what about when they come for your copy of \"Twilight, Book 57: Edward and Bella Retire to Boca\"? Maybe you won't be so complacent then.

$\"user-pic\"$

Nicole

July 18, 2009 2:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@TinaBringMeTheAx: That was my first thought. I can't think of a better book to have been the one in question here, except maybe Fahrenheit 451.

$\"user-pic\"$

doctor_cos wants you to remain calm

July 18, 2009 10:38 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Nicole: But if it was Farenheit 451, they would have had to send out the fire department, yes?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

redkamel

July 17, 2009 11:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

...adding another reason to not own an e-reader to my list...

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

amuro98

July 20, 2009 4:02 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Reason? This is pretty much the final nail in the coffin if you ask me.

$\"user-pic\"$

Apeweek

July 18, 2009 4:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@redkamel: Who needs a Kindle? I've read books on an old PDA for years, the kind of thing you can find used on eBay for about $20.

There are lots of places to get books (public domain, classics) for free in plain old text format.

And of course, this being the internet, there are places to get every popular book you have ever heard of in non-DRM form, too.

$\"user-pic\"$

Megladon

July 18, 2009 12:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

If your list is anything like mine, its getting quite long.

$\"user-pic\"$

gtheule

July 18, 2009 12:00 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@redkamel: You mean to not own a Kindle....

","

$\"user-pic\"$

jdmba

July 17, 2009 11:01 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow. That's all I can say. Well, I can also say that this is starting to look more like a rental system than a purchase, and that the kindle greatly needs a jailbreak.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 11:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Besides being ironic, this brings up the question-how could this company sell the books without liscense for so long without anyone noticing? This isn't some guy selling books out of his van-it's Amazon! I'd think this would be caught right away. We had a tangentially related case around here, where a company built a coal power plant without a permit and nobody realized for two years.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

stranger than fiction

July 26, 2009 9:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: The factory where the guy recently died in the chocolate vat had been unlicensed since 1996!

Contrast that with a laid-off single mom who got snagged within a matter of weeks for selling homemade muffins from a red wagon to office workers in the mornings. The money was keeping her kids sheltered and fed (without govt assistance thankyouverymuch), and the office workers knew the deal and didn't give a rat's ass that she wasn't operating from a pristine commercial kitchen — win-win for everybody, right? — but no, the health department insisted on shutting her down. (I'm guessing a nearby storefront bitched that she was stealing their business and this was their way of getting rid of the competition. Yeah I'm a cynic.)

The lessons I draw from these examples:

(1) Bootstrapping has essentially been outlawed in this country.

(2) The big guys somehow manage to get away with more than the little guys, regardless. Even though their big-ness makes them more obvious. Seriously, how do you miss an entire fucking factory that's not supposed to be there? Or a coal power plant?? Really?! But a chick with a red wagon is on the radar. <headscratch>

$\"user-pic\"$

Stephen Peters

July 19, 2009 5:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: In Canada, Australia, and probably other jurisdictions, the books in question are in the public domain. In (most) other locations, they're not. It's probably a matter of someone from one of the public domain areas releasing the books and not realizing the Berne Convention's ramifications.

$\"user-pic\"$

madog

July 17, 2009 11:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Coles_Law: I would imagine it's similar to the whole DOT COM bubble burst of 90s. People selling ideas with no actual product, or the execution therein failing on a huge scale.

The company probably assumed they would get the licensing but for whatever reason they ended up not getting it. Still, the customer should not have to pay for their mistake as this outcome could not have happened on any other medium. Another reason why DRM only benefits the seller.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

ajlei

July 17, 2009 11:03 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

That's why I love real books. *hugs her library*

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

shanoaravendare

July 19, 2009 12:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ajlei: Give me rooms full of floor to ceiling shelving filled with books and the wonderful sensory events that accompany them over a little plastic panel with no soul any day. There's a reason they call true book lovers bibliophiles.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 10:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ajlei: Meee toooo. I just had a garage sale today (made $72 - woohooo!) but couldn't bear to part with very many books. Just some old funky ones.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 1:07 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ajlei: Love them so hard.

*inappropriately fondles her bookcases*

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

July 17, 2009 11:52 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ajlei: for real books, i'll put up with the papercuts and sometimes silverfish coming to raid the glue on my binding ... they are mine and it's very clear that anyone taking them away from me is committing a crime.

$\"user-pic\"$

West Coast Secessionist

July 19, 2009 7:44 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl - sometimes makes typos and doesn't care: Oh it's crystal clear that Amazon committed a crime here. How on earth is it any different from the bookstore realizing they sold you a more valuable book than they thought it was, so they come to your house and steal the book back, without giving you the choice whether to accept their offer of compensation (refund) in exchange for YOUR book.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 17, 2009 11:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Apparently some ebooks are more equal than others.

2 + 2 = how much can we sue Amazon for stealing our property?

Are Kindle books not purchased and actually just licensed? If not, Amazon should be sued in civil court. If you bought a real book from Barnes and Noble but the publisher didn't have the rights to sell the book, Barnes and Noble still doesn't have the right to come to your house and steal you copy back, whether or not they give you a refund.

Amazon didn't even ask for permission.

Love that DRM

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rachacha

July 18, 2009 2:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RaffaeleBabamo: You could, but what damages did you suffer? They refunded the purchase price of the book, so you are out nothing financially, and if you actually finished reading the book(s) you came out ahead as you got to read the book for free on the Kindle.

$\"user-pic\"$

West Coast Secessionist

July 19, 2009 7:46 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: Damages are irrelevant. Whoever decided to steal the e-books should be prosecuted for one count of theft for each book they stole.

You know how the RIAA thinks it's stealing when you're NOT depriving anyone of property, but making a copy? That's not stealing.

*points to Amazon*
THIS. HERE. IS. STEALING. They are depriving you of your property without your permission.

$\"user-pic\"$

esc27

July 18, 2009 7:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Rachacha: I'd argue that they accessed and modified data on my device without permission, but they probably have blanket access to do anything they choose in their license agreement.
Looks like I will NEVER buy a kindle. Might even switch back to itunes for music...

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 2:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@esc27: It's my understanding that Apple can do the same thing with iTunes. For example, if you buy an app for your iPod Touch/iPhone, they can disable it. They can also do the same thing to DRM content that Amazon did.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 11:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I can envision a better solution for this, if indeed the issue is that the company selling the e-bools simply didn't have the digital rights.

First of all, the folks who bought the digital versions for their Kindle get to keep them.

Second, Amazon gets back all the money they paid to the company, via lawsuit if necessary. amazon then distributes the money directly to the authors or the rights holders.

And finally, Amazon puts in processes (much as I generally loathe process) that include due diligence to make sure anyone offering copyrighted content through Amazon actually has the rights to sell the content in the particular format.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 7:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

//I can envision a better solution for this, if indeed the issue is that the company selling the e-bools simply didn't have the digital rights.//

A more consumer friendly solution yes, but a solution that keep Amazon in the e-book selling business, that's doubtful.

//First of all, the folks who bought the digital versions for their Kindle get to keep them.//

So you are saying that they should be allowed to keep what isn't technically theirs? Does Microsoft fully activate the hundreds of thousands of bootleg Windows OSes out there because the purchasers of these $1.50 copies did so in good faith? Of course not, they cripple the software, alert the user that they 'might be a victim of software counterfeiting' and tell them to go out and get a legit copy.

//Second, Amazon gets back all the money they paid to the company, via lawsuit if necessary. amazon then distributes the money directly to the authors or the rights holders.//

At least in this case it probably wouldn't be enough to offset the damages of simply letting folks keep the books they don't quite own. A legit copy of 1984 on the Kindle costs 10 bucks, if I remember correctly the copy of 1984 that mobilereference was hawking was a dollar, where is Amazon going to get the extra 9 dollars to pay off the copy? That's right it's going to have to come from their own pockets, that's not how to run a business folks, especially in e-books when the margins are extremely low.

//And finally, Amazon puts in processes (much as I generally loathe process) that include due diligence to make sure anyone offering copyrighted content through Amazon actually has the rights to sell the content in the particular format.//

Even if they did, it would still be hard to stop instances such as these when the copyright owner is uncertain.

In other words this is a solution for consumers by a consumer, not a realistic solution that could be implemented by a business that wishes to survive.

$\"user-pic\"$

RedSonSuperDave

July 20, 2009 9:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mikemil828: The margins are low in e-books? Excuse me, I was under the impression that e-books were PURE PROFIT! It's not like they have packaging or shipping costs for a bunch of 1s and 0s that flow through the Internet onto their customers' Kindles.

$\"user-pic\"$

From the cubicle of PGibbons

July 23, 2009 6:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RedSonSuperDave: You have not factored in the maintenance costs on keeping those tubes open so the 1s and 0s flow through without losing a chapter or illustrations.

I'm actually quite shocked that Amazon can sell e-books for as low a price as those old \"analog\" copies. You would think that this new \"e\" technology would bump the price into the stratosphere. You would not expect pen and paper to be priced more than a laptop now, would you?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 11:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

In happier news, our chocolate ration is being increased from 2 grams to 1.5 grams.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 5:09 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This whole thread made my midnight. Priceless.

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

July 17, 2009 11:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Cliff_Donner: +1. Ignorance is Strength.

$\"user-pic\"$

Ferris152

July 18, 2009 2:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: +1 Reading is Slavery.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Riddar

July 17, 2009 11:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

One can hope that the increasingly ugly stunts by shortsighted companied (Microsoft threatening to permanently disable purchased songs, Apple refusing to allow other devices on iTunes, Amazon not respecting general concepts on property) might eventually mean that the average consumer will also demand DRM-free digital items. I can dream, anyway.

As a side note, this might be my favorite Consumerist headline ever.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

evelus2

July 19, 2009 5:01 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Riddar: The copies were not licensed so they did what was right and reimbursed the people who had paid for they believed (and Amazon apparently) were valid digital representations of those books. If we didn't have so many people anxious to sue because of petty nonsensical reasons we wouldn't even be talking about this. It would be a non-issue and people would understand it's not that big of a deal. I second fantomesq on the iTunes side also. As a side note who doesn't own paper copies of those books anyways?

$\"user-pic\"$

Riddar

July 20, 2009 1:32 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@evelus2: You are right, the licensing was FUBAR and they covered themselves as they needed to. I don't doubt they listened to everything their lawyers explained to them, and their lawyers were damn right. What I am saying is that it is a load of crap for it to be possible. Amazon should not have the ability to cover their mistake by remotely disabling, deleting, or otherwise changing data on a device sitting on my desk, and there is no question in my mind about that. I think it is INSANE that they have disabled features remotely on purchased devices (text-to-speech), they do not disclose the hidden restrictions on their products (device limits on books), or that they consider it their right to modify a long-completed sale (which they have granted themselves the right to, quite lawfully).

And since I have brought ill-will upon myself by evoking the name of Apple, I'll address that. It is a smart business decision to make life as hard as possible on the non-technically advanced, forcing them to either rely on technically savvy friends to free themselves from the restrictions of their purchased media. There are surely a great many MBAs in Apple talking about how great it is that purchasing iTunes music essentially locks those non-savvy users into Apple products, lest they lose their investment. But you know what? It isn't right. There has been a fundamental shift in the mentality of content providers, from us consumers purchasing goods to renting it, and then on highly restricted and controlled grounds. Somehow, a price drop didn't follow this rights shift, it just seems like content-providers got new and exciting ways to shaft the lay man.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 8:04 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Riddar: The Apple iTunes issue is completely different. Why should a company allow another company to hijack their own software to compete with them? iTunes has always only recognized iPods - Palm's masquerades notwithstanding. Apple already provides the RSS information for third parties to access the iTunes library. Let them develop their own software. Rubenstein should have been smarter.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

I Love New Jersey

July 17, 2009 11:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Yet another reason to actually read real books.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 12:03 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@I Love New Jersey: I grew up reading books and that's how I still do it.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

BeerManMike

July 17, 2009 11:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

NO! NO! NO! These cameras are for your SAFETY! yea, thats the ticket, safety...

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

rit

July 17, 2009 11:13 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Not to contribute to the hyperbole hear, but the other issue here is that a book published 60 years ago is still under strong copyright, which allows this kind of crap to happen.

Copyright was originally meant to last for 14 years - now it's what, authors life + 70 more years, and 120 if it was a company?

4 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Corydon

July 18, 2009 10:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rit: This is the real story here. I was born more than 20 years after Orwell died in 1950. There's a decent chance that I'll be dead and buried before 1984 enters the public domain here in the US in 2044. It's really outrageous.

And yes, the original English statute on copyright assigned a term of 14 years, more than enough time for an author to recoup plenty of money on their work (as an example, the first Harry Potter book wouldn't leave copyright under those terms until 2011, so JK Rowling would still be a multimillionaire).

And this lack of public domain means that very many less well known works live in a kind of inaccessible limbo, especially when the question of who owns the rights is unclear.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 5:14 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rit: 1984 and Animal Farm are public domain outside of the US, where obviously the copyright law has been extended. It's not hard to find free ebook copies of this on websites not based in the USA. Obviously this opens up a bigger can of worms regarding the worldwide accessability of online media versus copyright law that was written to assume that the media stops at the national border, but there it is. It's easy to understand how this could happen.

$\"user-pic\"$

ARP

July 17, 2009 11:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rit: And you can thank the Disney lobby for the extra time. Some of their works were about to be lost into the public domain before they lobbied for extra time.

$\"user-pic\"$

chrylis

July 17, 2009 11:25 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@ARP: Some of their works had already fallen into the public domain, and they clawed them back. See Eldred v. Ashcroft.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 17, 2009 11:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

The irony of this is almost too thick to cut through. This is absolutely unacceptable, and Amazon must recant this position. Once books are legitimately purchased, it is decidedly wrong and completely unethical to even have the power to perform an action such as this. This cannot be tolerated.

Please flood the Kindle product page with negative reviews so that prospective buyers can be aware of this jaw dropping breach of trust and display of power:
http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons-Wireless-Reading-Generation/dp/B00154JDAI/

While I have long taken a stance against DRM, this is horrifying and cannot and should not be tolerated by anybody, out of principle if nothing else. I sincerely hope this results in a class-action lawsuit.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

DrXym

July 18, 2009 11:17 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RaniaClaw: The problem is if you read the legalese attached to your device you will probably discover you haven't bought a book, rather just the license to view a digital copy of one and that the service reserves the right to do stuff like this.

Anyway DRM is probably an inevitability for most intellectual property in digital form since its too easy to copy otherwise, but the least the industry can do is adopt a single common platform. All these proprietary services are ultimately doomed to fail.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 3:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@DrXym: Actually, the T&C of the Kindle don't permit Amazon to unilaterally do what they did. But, carry on.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 17, 2009 11:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

These are precisely the reasons why no one should ever buy a Kindle, or a similar device, and/or e-books.

Can't give/trade/sell it when you're done, the \"books\" have no collectible value, and since it's all electronic and DRMd out the ass, your rug can just get yanked out from under you.

Kill the Kindle and stop pretending it's a good idea.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Prole

July 17, 2009 11:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow! I am impressed by Amazon's actions here. I can well imagine my chagrin if something I wrote was distributed by a third party who did not have the right to do so. It's a unique solution that Amazon employed to rectify the problem. Certainly there are ethical ramifications to how they went about this. However, what are the ramifications for writers and their estates when their work is distributed in such a fashion but the distributor and retailer fail to pay royalties?
It needs work, but who will protect the writers and similar content providers?
Lets be honest with ourselves and recognize the fact that while this did, and does, occur with regular books the impact was smaller because the distribution opportunities are easier to manage.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

davidc

July 18, 2009 5:35 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Prole: The problem here has nothing really to do with the authors at all.

People paid real money for supposedly a real product. Then a company came and basically, by force, bought the product back from the owners. You can't / should not be able to do that.

If Amazon had the money to give back to the customers, it had the money to give to the rights holder. This really has *nothing* to do with the customers at all and is just one more nail in the coffin for DRM.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

rhys1882

July 17, 2009 11:35 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I love in when people get slapped in the face with reality. Yes, Amazon tries to convince people e-books are just like the real thing so that they can sell more Kindles. But it's not the real thing.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

WhoAsked You

July 19, 2009 5:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@rhys1882: Why would you love for consumers to have their books stolen back without their permission, refunds notwithstanding?

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 6:30 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Because *this is the only way they'll learn*.

When you try to tell people that DRM is bad, they always whip out the \"Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong\" argument, just like when you attempt to explain why warrantless wiretapping and no-knock warrants are bad.

When *they* are the ones being targetted, and *haven't* done anything wrong, however, they're more likely to get the point.

My stepfather's employer was the target of a warrantless wiretap, where the government suddenly decided that his transfer of his own proprietary trade secrets to an overseas partner was somehow related to terrorism. He didn't find this out until long after the 'investigation' was over. Since his communications with customers, who may also have been supplying trade secrets TO him, were involved, this could have opened him and his company up to numerous international lawsuits.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

starrion

July 17, 2009 11:50 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Paper books Good! Kindle BAD!
OpenSource Good! DRM BAD!

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 1:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@starrion: Exactly. Buy a book. The only DRM on paper is acid oxidation.

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 12:09 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

From the license agreement you have to agree to before you can buy books from the Amazon Kindle Store (section 3. Digital Content). Emphasis is mine.

Use of Digital Content. 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. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.

I'm not sure how what they did doesn't break this agreement. It's really the most flagrant abuse of a digital content seller I've ever seen, and I'm kind of shocked it came from Amazon of all places.

[www.amazon.com]

5 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 10:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but \"non-exclusive\" means not exclusive. Meaning you don't have a 100% right, and that you share it with someone else -- my guess being Amazon.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 6:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MooseOfReason:

In the text, \"non-exclusive\" boils down to you being provided a license and not the actual material. You have the right to view it, you just don't have the right to transfer or resell it.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 24, 2009 12:43 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@RvLeshrac: Are you a lawyer?

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 3:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: Chris, I don't see any language in the Kindle Store agreement where Amazon reserves ANY right to remove a purchased title. I think they are decidedly in uncharted and treacherous waters here. Great article!

The NY Times had a well written article on this:
[www.nytimes.com]

$\"user-pic\"$

jaya9581

July 18, 2009 4:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: I think it's essentially like stolen property.

The publishing company (MobileReference) sold you a book for your Kindle out of the back of a van (Amazon). Unlike in a traditional purchase-of-stolen-property scenario though, everyone gets their money back.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 1:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@jaya9581: Nothing was \"stolen\". We're used to framing copying as theft, but making copies or selling copies is not theft. No property was taken, there are no damages, everyone is still whole. A book can be stolen, but electronic bits of data can not be stolen.

What you have is a party entering into an arrangement with Amazon where they had no right to do so. Amazon was in the right to sell the download to its customers based on the good faith of the supplier. The supplier is the party who must answer the rights owner.

$\"user-pic\"$

jaya9581

July 23, 2009 6:49 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: This may not get seen since it's been a few days, but really? You're claiming that copying something digitally isn't theft? You should talk to the RIAA, I bet they'd really like to talk to you.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 4:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@jaya9581: Even if an infringed right was stolen property (Its not - close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades) Amazon would STILL have no right to reclaim the \"stolen\" property\" - that's the police's job.

If Amazon failed to include a right of recapture in their contract, which appears to be the case, then they have NO RIGHT to do so and incur civil and possibly criminal penalties if they attempt to do so.

For as worked up as Consumerists get from bag-checkers. Imagine if the bag checker removed a paid for item from your bag - returned it to the cash register and handed you back cash... except this was done months later!

Sadly all of this will soon be moot - Amazon will rewrite the contract to include a right of recapture and get everyone to reagree to it so this issue will only apply to these books.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 12:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: My guess is that because Amazon didn't/couldn't actually legally license the content to you in the first place, the whole agreement is voided.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 12:19 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why couldn't Amazon have announced to these Kindle customers that they're issuing a voluntary recall, and anyone who agrees to let Amazon remove the book will get a full refund. For those that refuse, Amazon demands a refund of the profits for that number of copies from the publisher, and sues the publisher for the rest.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

outlulz

July 18, 2009 1:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Chris Walters: Because they're all considered illegal bootleg copies of the book.

$\"user-pic\"$

davidc

July 18, 2009 5:38 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@outlulz: Bootlegged? Products were purchased at a fair market price. The books were / are still being published ... form (electronic or print) should not matter.

This is clearly a matter between Amazon, the company that did not have the rights and the rights holder ... NOT THE CUSTOMER.

$\"user-pic\"$

doctor_cos wants you to remain calm

July 18, 2009 10:47 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@david.c: Oh, but the customer is affected. If I steal the Mona Lisa, and you buy it from me for 'fair market price'...can you honestly argue that it doesn't matter that I never actually had the rights to sell it to you?

Yes, this is the same thing. \"Good faith\" doesn't matter.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 3:46 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@doctor_cos: Yeah but in this case its not going to be the art dealer repossessing the \"stolen\" property. Copyright infringements aren't technically theft - despite what the RIAA tells you - and they do not produce stolen property. When an infringement suit is successful, it usually includes destruction of all infringing warehoused goods - they do NOT go house to house and repossess books. Amazon is WAY out on a limb on this...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 12:21 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

They didn't just delete the book. They went back in time and never sold it to you.

Any impression that you ever owned the book or read the book on your Kindle is the property of Amazon.com

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

PsiCop

July 18, 2009 12:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Here's a question. Had these been physical books, not electronic, would Amazon have had the right to go into people's homes and swipe them back?

If not — which I assume is the case — then how does this make any sense? Buyers have essentially contracted to buy something that can be taken back at any time without their knowledge, let alone consent. How exactly can that be called a viable, enforceable contract?

(Yes, I expect some \"intellectual property\" attorney out there could cook up some kind of hyperlegalistic rationale for it. But legalistic rationales are only that ... hyperlegalistic rationales. They have little or no bearing on real life or simple common sense.)

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

July 18, 2009 8:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@PsiCop: I don't know what a \"hyperlegalistic rationale\" is supposed to be, but commercial e-books come with restrictions just like everything else you buy electronically.

$\"user-pic\"$

PsiCop

July 19, 2009 12:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@mythago: A \"hyperlegalistic rationale\" would be something along the lines of UCITA, which treats all electronic purchases as fully different, legally, than anything else.

As for the \"restrictions\" you mention, it's not clear how Amazon is permitted under their own terms of service to do this (as pointed out in numerous places, e.g. the New York Times: \"Amazon's published terms of service agreement for the Kindle does not appear to give the company the right to delete purchases after they have been made. It says Amazon grants customers the right to keep a \"permanent copy of the applicable digital content.\"

The question I'm asking is still apt and remains unanswered: How can there be a viable, enforceable \"contract,\" when the buyer does not even know if he can keep what he's purchased?

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 1:03 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is scary on so many levels. Just figure, if this happens even a few more times, people will want their money back for the Kindle and go back to normal books that once in their possession remain there.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 1:05 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Books are sold. The person selling them is the one with the problem, not the buyers. The seller is going to have to make it right with the true owner. But you can't steal anything back from the customers.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 3:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Corporate_guy: I'm in complete agreement as to customer's rights on the issue. Trouble is that technologically Amazon CAN go into customers devices and delete works. I see a whole host of issues arising from this. They are effectively exercising editorial control over Kindle content post-sale.

Chris's quoting of the Kindle agreement above captures the issue - customers contracted for a PERMANENT digital copy... Its breach of contract certainly. Conversion would seem appropriate. I'm not certain criminal charges wouldn't fit the bill - theft of goods, potentially (though a stretch) even burglary.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 18, 2009 1:36 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Interesting. I wonder if the Kindle license actually allows for this. If not, they've committed multiple federal offenses for doing so. If it does it would be interesting to not connect your kindle to the web, inform amazon that you are breaching the contract and that they are NOT allowed to access your device and see what happens. They would have to get a court to order you to turn over the book. Which the court would be highly unlikely to do.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

outlulz

July 18, 2009 1:37 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This reminds me of how Little Big Planet had a song in it that Sony never had the license to put in the game so they sent out a mandatory patch to lock it out of gameplay.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

maxx22

July 18, 2009 1:57 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

The open secret here is that most books by well-known authors(from King on up or down) and including those not available on ebooks (Orwell, Rand, \"Harry Potter\") can be downloaded in PDF or LIT format from many (illegal) pirate web sites after which they can be legally converted and transferred to Kindles.

At that point, since they weren't purchased from Amazon, they cannot be deleted by Amazon.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

mythago

July 18, 2009 8:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@maxx22: If Amazon can erase from your Kindle, you think they can't include software to look for pirated works?

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 2:45 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Good thing Project Gutenberg (non-US servers) already have the public domain versions.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 6:05 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@balthisar: interesting. must see how to get to those from us. . . .

","

$\"user-pic\"$

MikeVx

July 18, 2009 2:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This is where an attorney would need to chime in. My suspicion on this relating to the case where unauthorized physical works are sold is not that they cannot legally require them to be returned. I think that it is a matter of impracticality. My thinking goes like this: If it was not legal for the publisher to print it, it was not legal for them to sell it to you, for you to buy it, and is illegal for you to keep. If the version is not authorized its mere existence is illegal, therefore possession is illegal. If I am correct (this is why an attorney needs to chime in) Amazon had no legal choice, and in fact would be legally required to do the same to a paper book if it were not effectively impossible to do so. It comes down to money again and it is simply not worth the cost to prosecute you for your illegal possession of an illegal book.

Using a general-purpose pocket computer as an e-book reader FTW.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 3:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MikeVx: Absolutely not. Counterfeit goods get produced all the time. Infringement cases go after profits and destruction of warehoused goods - not already sold goods. It may be an impracticability issue but its also a possession issue. Infringed goods are NOT stolen goods and are not subject to recapture.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

jenjen

July 18, 2009 3:47 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

This does happen in the print world, in the narrow little niche of government depository collections. Rarely, but it has happened, where some major problem is identified with a government publication and depository libraries are required to return it. If the library had purchased a for-sale copy, the rule does not apply. But like with Amazon, there is a contract that was agreed to and one of the conditions is this right to take it back if necessary.

I think Amazon failed here in that they didn't immediately state what the reason was for the recall of these books. They left it a mystery and people rightly freaked out. It's odd to me because their music store is completely DRM-free. I would have expected music publishers to be more hard-core about this than book publishers. Huh.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 5:12 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

What's going on? First, the reply function doesn't work, now I can't look at page 2 because it automatically snaps back to the first page? :(

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rectilinear Propagation

July 20, 2009 1:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: That's happened to me several times. Haven't figured that one out yet.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sanveann

July 18, 2009 4:16 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica: Happens to me sometimes, too.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 1:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@aguacarbonica:

That happens to me a lot...

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

davidc

July 18, 2009 5:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Products purchased at market value in good faith that end up in a \"rights dispute\" are generally never \"taken back\" from the customer ... especially by force.

The media for the products should not matter and they should not be treated differently. If the books that were sold were physical, they would not be asking customers to return the books.

This was a prefect example, yet again, how DRM is really more about screwing the customer, then protecting the rights holders. The rights holders didn't need protection from the customers and since amazon sold the products at fair market value, the money could have / should have been given to the proper rights holders.

DRM = Bad for Customers. Always has been, always will be.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 8:15 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

George Orwell nonperson, 1984 misprint; recdep substitute prolefeed. Amazon upsub MobileReference.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 6:06 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NadiaCastor: +5

$\"user-pic\"$

RedSonSuperDave

July 18, 2009 4:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@NadiaCastor: +1

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

DrXym

July 18, 2009 11:13 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

People who sucked on Amazon's kool-aid only have themselves to blame when incidents like this happen. I'm sorry but if you buy into a proprietary account-based service, be it providing music, videos or books then you are risking something very bad happening to your collection.

The provider might lose rights to a title, or never have had them in the first place. It might be subject to lawsuits that make it withdraw titles. The service might be end-of-lifed (as Amazon have already done once with Unbox). Or it might go out of business entirely. Or you the end-user might find yourself in violation of the usage policy. Or somebody might hack your account and trash it or get it cancelled.

All of these things mean you could lose your collection or have it curtailed in some way.

Now none of this might be so bad if the service was cheap, or the reader was cheap, or if the reader supported non DRM'd books well enough. But they don't.

So really people who suck down on this proprietary stuff are only setting themselves up for a fall.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 1:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I ordered my kindle dx a couple days ago, looking forward to putting my textbooks, drawings, and work manuals on it. Its going to be nice to have all of that information on one small device, where it would have been some 20 pounds and a large box of real paper products.

there are lots of free books you can get, and honestly i don't mind the DRM. if there is a book i really want a physical copy, i'd buy it. otherwise, i'd rather have a digital copy.

Enjoy your books, i'll enjoy my kindle. Some people still ride horses too... nothing wrong with that.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 10:26 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kompeitou: Me three. I got one as a gift last year, and absolutely love the thing. I find that my purchasing/borrowing of \"real\" books has stayed at about the same level as before, but that I'm reading a LOT more simply due to the convenience factor. I don't have any interest in \"collecting\" titles on the Kindle--I delete them as soon as I'm done reading them anyway. If it's something I want to keep and treasure, then it's on my bookshelf in paper form. If it's something I want to read RIGHT NOW, then *presto*, there it is, right in my purse.

And not for nothing, but a Kindle is about 10 times easier to read while lying in bed than a \"real\" book, especially a paperback. That alone was a huge bonus for me.

It's not an either/or thing...no reason you can't keep buying/borrowing books made of trees just because you also own a digital reader.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sanveann

July 18, 2009 4:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@kompeitou: I'll drink that Koolaid with you :)

I LOVE my Kindle. I think it's awesome to be able to have a whole stack of books in my purse :) Hmmmm ... what should I read today? \"Vanity Fair\"? The Bible? \"War and Peace\"? Oh, they're all RIGHT HERE! :)

$\"user-pic\"$

JulesNoctambule

July 18, 2009 8:36 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sanveann: . . .unless Amazon decides to remove them for you, that is.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sanveann

July 19, 2009 1:56 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@JulesNoctambule: Those books are all in the public domain, so that wouldn't happen ... and if you were REALLY worried about it, you could get them from a source other than Amazon. There are about 1,001 places to download free ebooks from.

$\"user-pic\"$

Stephen Peters

July 19, 2009 6:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Sanveann: To be fair, \"1984\" is in the public domain as well (just not in the US or EU). Saying \"that wouldn't happen\" given what just happened strikes me as a tad naive.

$\"user-pic\"$

Sanveann

July 20, 2009 1:52 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Stephen Peters: @Stephen Peters: OK, \"those books are all in the public domain in THIS country.\" And like I said, there are a zillion other places you could download books from, if you were that paranoid about it.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 1:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I thought it was way too much money to begin with. Now, as it turns out, people are paying to be e-home invaded. Big Brother at it's finest.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

BennyBullOnRoids

July 18, 2009 2:43 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Class action those muthas

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Sanveann

July 18, 2009 4:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Full disclosure: I have a Kindle and I love it. Most of what I read on it is public-domain stuff and free, so the cost of ebooks and Amazon's ability to delete them (I often get them from other sources, like Gutenberg) doesn't affect me much.

I think Amazon handled this whole thing poorly. They should have been up-front about the situation and offered people a chance to decide what they wanted -- the book or the refund. However, they have said they will not do this again in the future: [www.betanews.com]

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

RedSonSuperDave

July 18, 2009 4:32 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Since a time before human civilization knew that there was an American continent, the written word was in use. Scrolls, tablets, or books have been used to record information since the Roman Empire was a village on a few hills. Back then, when germs were fantasy and giants were real, you could write \"the Sun is a flaming chariot driven across the sky\" on a piece of papyrus and if you picked up that piece of papyrus ten years later, it would still say the same thing.

Flash forward a couple thousand years. We're still using books, only now, if the publisher gets involved in a legal dispute or maybe the distributor decides to censor an inflammatory work, they can decide to make your book NOT EXIST anymore. If that's progress, give me heliocentrism any day.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 4:39 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Look I love gadgets as much as the next guy. But this is still Amazons fault. Where was the \"check\" on this companies IP licensing prior to them becoming a storefront on Amazons site? Whats that Amazon? You didn't check? I thought so.

Get your DRM house in order Amazon.... you can't pass the buck here. This vendors wares (or in this case they were actually WAREZ) should have never become \"live\" on your site for anyone to buy things from an unlicensed company.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 18, 2009 4:44 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Funny, I was at Borders last night and they had Sony's e-reader on display, and I was remarking to a friend about how convenient it would be to have all my books with me at once. Then I see this. NoThankYou.jpg, indeed.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 18, 2009 8:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

WOW! My copy was deleted while I was half way finished reading Burmese Day which upset me greatly so I emailed amazon and here is the lame response that they sent back: Hello, We recently discovered a problem with some Kindle book on our Kindle store. These books \"1984 and Animal Farm\" 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 devices, and issued a full refund to your account. We are working with the authorized rights holder to make this title available in our store very soon. We apologize for any inconvenience the removal of these titles may cause. We value our customers and did not intended this to happen. I hope you'll give us another chance in the future. Thank you for your patience and understanding. Please let us know if this e-mail resolved your question: If yes, click here: If not, click here: Please note: this e-mail was sent from an address that cannot accept incoming e-mail. To contact us about an unrelated issue, please visit the Help section of our web site. Best regards, Keerthi Amazon.com We're Building Earth's Most Customer-Centric Company http://www.amazon.com/your-account

","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

lalakl

July 18, 2009 9:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I've seen a lot of references on here to the fact that a couple of the books were by George Orwell. In truth, those weren't the only books affected by this. There were also copies of the Twilight Saga and Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince among others. (The HP book only got past Amazon for about seven minutes or something like that, but people still managed to download it.)

If you purchased one of these books and don't want it taken back until you're finished there is a quick, simple thing you can do. Don't turn Whispernet on until you're done.

","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Hawkins

July 18, 2009 10:34 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It gets worse, folks.

There's a secret cap on the number of times you can download a book that you \"bought.\" Even on the supposedly DRM-free books.

Need to reinstall? Kindle broke? Bought a second Kindle? You may be out of luck. And apparently they can change this number, at will.

See [boingboing.net] .

Do not support DRM. It's evil. Really.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 18, 2009 11:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Quoting from Chris Walters regarding the Kindle License Agreement, and to the others who couldn't see how Amazon reserves the right to do this:

\"Use of Digital Content.
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. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.\"

For those of you who missed it, the term \"non-exclusive right\" means you don't outright own the titles on the Kindle \"free and clear.\" It's just like practically any software agreement (you know, those things nobody reads?) where you are granted a license to use the software, even if you bought it from the software store, you don't own it outright. Also, their agreement regarding \"licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon\" means that they reserve the right to cancel your license whenever \"expressly provided by Amazon.\"

I have a Kindle DX, and I also have a huge collection of books. Amazon probably could've handled this better, but they refunded everyone for that copy of the book, and it's not like there are no other copies of 1984 for the Kindle, and I'm sure Animal Farm will be re-released in Kindle edition shortly.

To those who say this would never have happened with printed media, you're right. But keep in mind that it wouldn't happen because the book would never have been printed and sold in a bookstore legally without full copyright verification, so you'd never have had the book in the first place.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

WhoAsked You

July 19, 2009 5:29 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Honest to fricking god. Pay the damn publisher their due for all bought copies, and stop selling them, or better yet (DUH) get a new agreement in place using Amazon's leverage in the market NOW. Leave people's devices alone.

Amazon is asking for absolute stoppage of Kindle sales by doing this, and they would deserve it.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

bbb111

July 19, 2009 7:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@WhoAsked You: Honest to fricking god. Pay the damn publisher their due for all bought copies, and stop selling them, or better yet (DUH) get a new agreement in place using Amazon's leverage in the market NOW. Leave people's devices alone.

That would require the publisher agreeing to this. The publisher might have an exclusive agreement with someone else for the e-publishing rights and thus cannot do it.

Also, the publisher might want Amazon to hurt from the mistake - if the standard punishment for getting caught is a slap on the wrist and pay the royalties, then Amazon gets to keep the profit from the rights theft - that doesn't discourage future incidents. [Amazon is probably negotiating a payment to the publisher to avoid a lawsuit, but we will never see it.]

","","","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 3:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I will not buy a Kindle until it is basically a small computer that has a book reader:
A book is yours forever.. a Kindle belongs to Amazon along with all of its content.
A book can be gifted to your local library when you're done..
A book cares not what you do with it ... a Kindle can be shut off if Amazon takes a dislike to you.
A book requires no battery .. a Kindle's battery will eventually die and you will have to send it for repair (at your cost)
A book costs well under $50.. a Kindle is many times more expensive
A real book costs the same as an e-book?
A book has excellent reflective technology .. a Kindle, not so much.
A book store has locations all over the world .. Kindle only works where Sprint has coverage.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 19, 2009 6:09 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: word.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 19, 2009 4:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

My neighbor is not home. Want to buy his house for $9.99 from me? Cool. Thanks for the money. Here's the keys he gave me so I could put his mail inside.

What's that, my neighbor wants his house back? Hmmm...

I guess since I didn't really have the rights to sell you his house, that you don't really own it. Rather you got taken.

In this case, a company sold Amazon keys they didn't own and Amazon further sold them to you. Now that the real owner is back, do you really think you have any rights to his house?

Nobody bought a legitimate copy of the book from Amazon. Amazon sold the books in good faith (I assume).

While the ebooks were not legitimate and while the real controller of the copyright had the right to take them back, I believe that simply sucking it back was not the way to go. I think it is a bad precedent to suck things off a person's device.

Just think of future implications.... If they can pull things off, then does that mean if you put a book of your own onto your device that they could remove it as well because they don't have verification that you have a license to it? What else can they pull off or remove?

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 11:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GiordanoFazoons:

Yeah, and then you'd be sued and/or put in jail. You can't sell something you don't own. In this case, the people that sold the \"copies\" to Amazon are at fault and need to be sued, not the consumers of the book.

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 2:40 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@GiordanoFazoons: Wouldn't you actually be selling a digital copy of your neighbor's house?

","","","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

lalakl

July 19, 2009 11:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Here's a full list of books that were pulled because of this issue:

Breaking Dawn
Eclipse
New Moon
Twilight
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
4 copies of Animal Farm
2 copies of 1984
Works of George Orwell. Includes Animal Farm, Nineteen eighty-four (1984), The Road to Wigan Pier, Coming up for Air, Burmese Days, 50 essays and more.

If this happens again, Amazon will not be taking the books off Kindles. The system was set up so that the books were automatically removed, but it's being retooled so that won't happen in the future.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

lalakl

July 20, 2009 2:09 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

And some more books:

2 copies of STAR TREK Both Hands Full
Necessary Evil
STAR TREK:Another Piece of the Action
Star Trek A Touch of Greatness

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 11:30 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Wow. Orwell wrote those books over 60 years ago, he died in 1950, and companies STILL need to purchase the rights to publish this book? Seems to me *someone* is living the Lifestyles of the Rich and Undeserving.

","","","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Cheapskate Brill

July 20, 2009 4:51 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Owning a Kindle is like paying a fee to check a book out of the library. You don't own the book.

Someone needs to write a utility to convert kindle files to .pdf's or at least .txt.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 6:17 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Even more ironic is that 1984 can be freely read online, possibly in more than one place. Here's one:
[www.george-orwell.org]

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

Anonymous

July 20, 2009 9:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It's a tricky situation because the problem with the books is understandable, at least from the viewpoint of the copyright/reproduction legality. Technically, those books are produced illegally, and it's not censorship since they're available from other publishers. But it's also unnerving for Amazon to do that to customers.

But the real problem is, why was Amazon selling those books in the first place? Shouldn't they have checked the publisher's rights for reproducing the books? If people at Amazon were doing the right thing in the first place, none of this would have happened. Amazon's trying to say, \"Hey, we're doing the right thing here, our hands are tied by the law. It's a rare occurrence.\" But that's just trying to distract from the fact that they did the *wrong* thing in the first place and now they have to fix their screw up.

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

July 20, 2009 11:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Why isn't Amazon going after the company that illegally sold them the \"copies\" in the first place? Or for that matter, having the publisher that owns the rights go after them? Consumers should not have to pay the price because other companies did not have their acts together. Lawsuit by Kindle users please and end this.

","","","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

bigduke

July 24, 2009 3:23 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Dear Jeff, I will buy your stinking Kindle on the first day that I don't see an ad for it on the front page of Amazon. You are at about at 2 years running so far...

","

$\"user-pic\"$

MikeL

July 25, 2009 11:25 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Six months ago bloggers (notably Stephanie at UrbZen) warned about this kind of thing.

Really.

See:

[notionscapital.wordpress.com]

","","

$\"user-pic\"$

James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil

November 26, 2009 12:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Amazon has always been disdainful of users and, with the Kindle, able to sell an over-priced piece of junk. They they charge an outrageous price for ebooks. I keep my 800 ebooks on a tablet PC that cost less than the Kindle Krap and also does videos, games, and surfs the web.

BTW, I also got all of my ebooks for free, so Amazon, Barnes and Noble (another rip-off) and company can bite me.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

James Smith João Pessoa, Brazil

November 26, 2009 12:47 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

You could have transferred those books to a PC or even a thumb drive and kept them safe from the predators at Amazon.

");