Amazon will not remotely delete or modify such Works from Devices purchased and being used in the United States unless
(a) the user consents to such deletion or modification;
(b) the user requests a refund for the Work or otherwise fails to pay for the Work (e.g., if a credit or debit card issuer declines to remit payment);
(c) a judicial or regulatory order requires such deletion or modification; or
(d) deletion or modification is reasonably necessary to protect the consumer or the operation of a Device or network through which the Device communicates (e.g., to remove harmful code embedded within a copy of a Work downloaded to a Device).
I must admit, it's hard for me to come to terms with the idea of a company retaining any control over something I've paid for, even though networked devices by their nature must participate within a larger group. I suspect this will be one of those attitudes that dates me as future generations grow up within such a system and learn to accept it. But books are a special case in that they can contain revolutionary, heretical, or otherwise controversial ideas, which is the sort of stuff that people in power, or people seeking power, like to control. Call me crazy and paranoid, but I never want a government or legal agency wielding power over my books. Never.
So the real problem here, which this clarification doesn't resolve, is that Amazon doesn't sell ebooks on the Kindle store. It sells licenses to ebooks. It describes the licenses as more or less perpetual, but as Amazon has proven in multiple real world circumstances over the past year, the license is pointless if the digital manuscript stored on Amazon's servers goes away. If you own a Kindle device you can download backup copies to your PC, but if you're using an iPhone you can't even do that (unless you jailbreak your phone). The average consumer is completely at the mercy of Amazon's library. Yes, they've tightened the rules under which they'll remove something, but you can still drive pretty big trucks through the holes that remain. After all, they still can delete your books.
And that's the part we just don't get. We don't understand why Amazon built its syncing system in such a way that it retains full control over the content that it continues to say it "sells" to you.
"Amazon settles lawsuit over deleted Kindle copy of '1984'" [TechFlash] (Thanks to Matthew!)
(Photo: alshain49)
Dump the Kindle.
]]>It's created a lot of excitement because most people assumed they actually owned the books on their Kindle, and they were proven wrong. There have been cases where physical media were "recalled" due to various issues (I have a copy of a DVD copy of "Ed Wood" that was release then called back from retailers due to rights issues) -- but in those cases, the copies that made it to individual buyers stayed there (and made a good market for those people on eBay or wherever).
I also heard of at least one case where someone had added notes to their Kindle copy of 1984 that were erased along with the book. So it wasn't just the book that some people lost.
]]>The difference here is that a year book is a personal reflection of youth and full of memories. 1984 is simply a book that anyone can buy at any book store. If you cant have the digital version just go buy the hardback
]]>@Gorphlog:
If your yearbook contained some kind of objectionable obscenity, and the school/publisher issued a recall, would you want a corporation breaking into your house to retrieve it?
]]>If you want a dead-tree copy to hold and keep safe, buy one. If you want hundreds of books to carry with you anywhere, and don't particularly care if you lose them, use a Kindle. Or do both; I realize that the Kindle's not nearly as good on the coffee table as a Taschen.
Also, Amazon's reach doesn't quite extend to the archive on my laptop. If I don't want them to take something from me, I can still protect it.
]]>I am the first to say that Amazon failed on deleting the Orwellian titles and also that they paid for that mistake rather heftily, but this list is a wholly reasonable list of circumstances where remote deletion may well be wholly justified. I applaud Amazon for striking a reasonable balance.
]]>I do agree with Chris about this being a generational thing: this decade, pretty much, is the first one in which we've had the technology to manage remote electronic licenses in real-time. So now we can buy licenses to play songs, licenses to read books, licenses to play games ... and as long as a market leader supports some version of DRM, where is the average consumer going to go?
Sure, you can vow never to buy XBLA games, but what if their system never changes? Is it really a sacrifice worth making? (Insert RROD joke here.)
Then again, the Kindle is different because it is only a market leader in terms of electronics ... until the Kindle can provide many features above and beyond those in a physical book, physical books are the "leader" in the book market. (Contrast that to games; Microsoft has a decent share of the console market, which is good enough for them to establish the use of DRM for games. While there are many, many, many physical board and card games available, consoles have a large number of games that can't be replicated in the physical world. Peggle, for example.)
]]>I have absolutely no statistical data to support this, but my gut feeling is that most people would hang onto their e-book licenses if they were going to lose a percentage of the original cost when they sell them. So, just like physical used books, there would always be a shortage of 'used' licenses when compared to the 'new' licenses. Despite my not being willing to buy an eBook reader that denies me the 'right of first sale', I don't really see myself selling my books on a regular basis. I just want to know that I have the option.
]]>One day, the Kindle will change one word in your book every day (without you noticing) until they have literally re-written history.
Signed,
George Orwell
]]>The same thing can happen if an ultra-liberal group comes to power at Amazon, they might decide that the consumer needs to be protected from right-wing literature.
It goes both ways. Ultra Left is just as bad as Ultra Right.
The Kindle is a failure IMO if they have ANY power to delete books from it. I will never buy a kindle or any kind of digital book reader where a third party has the ability to delete my books without consent.
The Kindle, or any digital book reader needs to have the same kind of security on the books that physical books have. If I buy a book in the store, and I go home and put it in my library, it would be illegal for the book store or anybody to come into my house and remove my book, even if they refund me my money.
I'm fine with them if the book is deemed 'illegal' and they stop providing it, but to go to people who have already bought it and removing it from their possession is the same as them going into your house and taking the books out of your library.
A competitor may come out for the Kindle with a better policy and will probably smack down Amazon on this issue. People do not want to have books taken from them, period. This is a losing battle and it will feed into digital book piracy if they continue this crap. Why pay for a book that they ultimately can make a decision to remove it from you, when you can steal it and they have no control over it.
]]>(d) easily leaves room for e.g. deleting a book about how to hack the Kindle. Or if e.g. an ultra-conservative group comes to power at amazon, they might decide that the consumer needs to be protected from left-wing literature. Etc.
Though as long as amazon retains the right to change its deleting policy after purchase, any policy is long-term meaningless anyway. Whatever rules are effective at time of purchase should remain effective forever for that purchase.
]]>(a) the user consents to such deletion or modification;
HOW do you consent? By buying the device? Is it opt-in or opt-out? Do you have to opt every time you buy an ebook?
]]>You want a portable book? Get a paperback. OR a Netbook - it's cheaper, equally small and can handle more than just reading material. I love mine and now have no need for a Blackberry, iTouch (or whatever crap they'll shill next - 1st generation nano owner and still bitter) or Sony Reader.
]]>@rondalescott: So as a customer, I vote with my wallet. I will refuse DRM'ed products, each and every time, amongst other measures that I take.
]]>Every single book listing on Amazon has a link for "Have one to sell? Sell yours here" button. But, only for physical books. Amazon controls the Kindle licensing system, so it is well within their technical ability to create a system for selling 'used' Kindle titles.
The system would be fairly easy. Button to list book. As part of the listing process the server deactivates your existing license, and before the listing goes active you have to sync all your reader devices and let the title be deleted. Once all known copies are deleted, your listing goes live. Once it sells, Amazon transfers your portion of the sale to your account.
If Amazon did that, and changed the above listed deletion conditions to "(A and (B or C or D)" then I'd buy a Kindle within minutes.
-Chris
]]>The other reasons I won't own a Kindle are of course that the books are ridiculously priced for something that is distributed electronically, you can't resell them after you're done, and you can't loan them to friends unless you want to hand over your Kindle. And considering how with few exceptions I usually only read a book once, I think I'll just stick to the public library.
]]>Most importantly this list ties Amazon's hands from doing what it did regarding the Orwell works. I would still ike to see advanced notice before deletion and maybe something less drastic - a deactivation but not removal but this is a huge step in bringing Amazon into compliance with their user's expectations.
]]>"(a) the user consents..."
Seems legit. No argument here.
"(b) the user requests a refund or fails to pay..."
Standard refund practice (give back the merch, get a refund). The 'fail to pay' case has the same outcome as physical goods, so I'm kind of 'meh' about it.
"(c) a judicial or regulatory order requires such deletion or modification"
Wat? This is my 'no way' moment.
"(d) deletion or modification is reasonably necessary to protect the consumer or the operation of a Device or network through which the Device communicates (e.g., to remove harmful code embedded within a copy of a Work downloaded to a Device)."
Basically remote support. That's cool with me.
What I would like to see is a dialog on the Kindle that says "Amazon would like to [do X] to [Title]. Allow? Yes/No". In some cases (like, say, C or D) perhaps this would disallow you from buying more titles.
]]>Enough said.
]]>You can take your copy of "Tropic Of Cancer" to the beach, and if a stray wave catches it, no biggie -- you open it up on the windowsill or a radiator, and after a while it's dry and readable again... not to mention, as you said, once you've bought a real book, you own it forever, a tangible thing that can be kept and treasured and shared.
Looks like Amazon is competing with Google and Microsoft for Most Evil Country In The World -- a contest in which, by the way, Google has actually pulled ahead of Microsoft.
]]>