var json_comments = new Array("

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 6:17 PM

Moderate | Flag for review

I've said it before to my friends, and I'll say it again: Paper is your friend.

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.

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

kujospam

October 4, 2009 2:28 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@flugennock: That's really not true at all. A original copyright owner retains the right to demand the work be back in their name at a later date. So they could technically after 59 years if the author is alive, or shorter if the author is dead (his family does this) revoke your right of having a copy of any copyrighted material he created. Then you are now caring a book that you could be sent to jail for. has it happened? No, can it ? Yes. Google \"terminating copyright\".

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 6:19 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

As I've said all along - those books sitting on my shelf at home are mine forevermore. No one can 'delete' them.

Enough said.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

Rob

October 3, 2009 7:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MaxSmart32: Until the Firemen come.

$\"user-pic\"$

syzygy

October 3, 2009 12:49 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MaxSmart32: Yes, because once you buy a Kindle, you are prohibited from ever buying a physical book ever again.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:48 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@MaxSmart32: Anyone with a match and access to your home or the surrounding area can \"delete\" them.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

Entendu

October 2, 2009 6:22 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Well, let's break down those 4 circumstances in which deletion could happen:

\"(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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 6:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Have fun paying for your fake books.
I might not be able to carry as many of my books around with me, but at least I don't have to worry about Barnes and Noble coming by my house and snatching a book out of my hands...

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 7:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Radi0logy: As usual, I'm with this guy.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 6:28 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

I think it's a mistake to characterize this as a generational issue. DRM sucks no matter when you were born--young people must be educated as to this fact. As history has proved, if a certain abuse of power is possible, it will almost certainly occur. Books--and music, to a lesser degree--are just too damned important to maintaining core human rights to screw around with this way.

2 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 7:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@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.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@holytrainwreck: So will I. And thanks to the attention paid to this issue here, I will kick and scream about people DRM-ing my stuff.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:21 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@holytrainwreck: Unfortunately more and content is being delivered digitally now and as a result, DRM is being intergrated in more and more ways. I shudder to think it, but we may hit a point where non DRM media pickings are pretty slim.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 6:38 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

This list, if exhaustive, is completely reasonable. Certainly if a user requests removal of a work, they would be permitted to do so. It is also completely reasonable for Amazon to remove a work where payment failed. No one is expecting Amazon to disobey a court order requiring removal of a work and the safety of the platform as a whole is paramount to any abusive work.

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.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 9:07 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: So exactly when was the last time a court ordered that books be recalled from people's homes after they purchased them?

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

October 3, 2009 7:59 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: i would say april 6th 1933 but i don't know if the Main Office for Press and Propaganda of the German Student Association is in any way part of the german government.

[www.ushmm.org]

$\"user-pic\"$

October 3, 2009 8:58 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@catastrophegirl: Very well done. And it's not like that is the last time local governments have called for banning of books.

$\"user-pic\"$

catastrophegirl chooses not to fly

October 3, 2009 9:20 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@subtlefrog: of course if anyone wants to burn my books they will have to burn my house down with me in it. it'd also be faster than hauling them all out of here. but let me get the cats and dog out first.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 11:45 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vastrightwing: That'd be where the analogy to the sale of physical books fails. No one has said that you will have all of the same rights as with physical books. I have no doubt that other rights such as the first sale doctrine are also curtailed - much as they are with digital music and movies and it may well be that no court will order the recall of digital books either but the point is that IF they do, that Amazon is covered. They really can't be expected to defy a court order on your behalf.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 3, 2009 8:57 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: That's exactly what I was thinking when I read the story. I'm not a fan of the ebooks in general, and I am not planning on moving away from paper books. I also think what Amazon did with 1984 was complete crap. But I think this new TOS is more than reasonable, and I'm not sure I understand what's to be concerned about here. I don't know how or when a judge would order removal, but IF one did, IF that happened, they are telling you - look, we're not going against a judge. We will remove the book. You have been told. I might not agree with the judge's reasoning, but at least Amazon is being straight forward, and this locks out behavior like the 1984 incident.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

esc27

October 2, 2009 6:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

It is not really the book deletion that bothers me so much as the fact that Amazon can access and modify what is presumably my device at will.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

diasdiem

October 2, 2009 6:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Analog rules. One of the reasons I will probably never own a kindle (or at least not pay money for one.) If I buy something from a company, I say it's mine, and I can do what I wish with it. I don't allow Dell to remotely connect to my computer and poke around my hard drive and delete stuff. I would consider such an action as an invasion of privacy.

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.

","

$\"user-pic\"$

cknight

October 2, 2009 6:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Until Amazon builds 'right of first sale' mechanics into the Kindle system I consider the entire product line a joke played on consumers.

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

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:54 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cknight: But a \"used\" book license is no different than a new one, unlike a physical book which may have undergone some wear and tear. Why would Amazon give you a forum to undercut them?

$\"user-pic\"$

cknight

October 2, 2009 9:59 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@eelmonger: Because Amazon would still take a cut of the sale, just like they do with physical used books. And, if they give a small percentage of the 'used' sale back to the author then everyone would be happy.

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 3, 2009 2:20 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cknight: Digital books for purchase is a nascent market that could be cutoff by the publishers at any time. Keep in mind that the publishers are NOT in favor of the first sale doctrine/resale as it is and would gladly curtail those rights if it were within their power to do so, so they are definitely not likely to stand for it in digital works. I doubt we'll see it in any digital works - books, music, movies, etc.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 4, 2009 1:16 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@fantomesq: This is my feeling as well, especially when they can argue that digital copies don't lose quality like a physical copy does.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:14 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@cknight: Hey, that would be pretty cool. I would be less vociferous against it if we could do that.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

sybann

October 2, 2009 7:24 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

FigNinja

October 2, 2009 10:10 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sybann: I've got nothing against netbooks, but they're not really equally as small and most aren't as cheap as the Kindle. A new Kindle 2 is only $300. You can get a refurbed Kindle 1 for half that. Also the Kindle weighs 10 oz and is less than 1/2\" thick. That is way smaller and lighter than a netbook. You also get the advantage of battery life. It takes days to wear that thing down rather than hours. If you don't like Amazon's Kindle policies, there are other readers and stores out there. Kindle and Sony get most of the publicity but there are quite a few lesser known eInk devices and independent stores. The prices and physical specs are pretty similar. Netbooks are great. They do all sorts of things a reader can't, but I wouldn't want to read a novel on one.

$\"user-pic\"$

syzygy

October 3, 2009 12:55 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@FigNinja: An eInk screen owns a backlit LCD in terms of eyestrain during long duration reading sessions. Which is the reason I don't use my netbook for reading. Not to mention the weight issues mentioned above.

$\"user-pic\"$

skormos

October 2, 2009 8:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@sybann: trying carrying a paperback the size of \"The Power Broker\" on a subway commute for an hour... in fact, try carrying a netbook on a crowded train for that period of time.

","","","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

Here's what bothers me:

(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?

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:41 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@HogwartsAlum: Good point. I've seen far to many terms of service that read, \"by using and accessing this service you consent to...\"

","

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:18 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

(c) makes it easier than ever before for a government to ban or \"burn\" books.

(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.

3 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

voogru

October 2, 2009 9:00 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: Tomorrow is the last day of National Banned Books Week. Everybody read a banned book!!!!

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 8:42 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@vladthepaler: Agreed, rules should be grandfathered.

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

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

October 2, 2009 9:26 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

1 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 10:12 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw: ha. never mind that ... one day, they'll post an article about the Kindle that doesn't devolve into threads of \"physical book rulz\" and \"Kindle rulz\". (crosses fingers)

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.)

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

$\"user-pic\"$

Gorphlog

October 2, 2009 10:29 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

What is the big deal, they refunded the money the people spent on the book. Its not like they bought the book, and then Amazon deleted and and refused to issue a refund. In fact Amazon issued a refund without the customer even needing to contact them. Again its no big deal. They werent legally allowed to sell the book so they had to do a recall

6 replies

$\"user-pic\"$

jadbalja

October 5, 2009 6:53 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

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.

$\"user-pic\"$

October 4, 2009 7:15 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: They could have WARNED them.

$\"user-pic\"$

Blueskylaw

October 3, 2009 1:19 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

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?

$\"user-pic\"$

October 3, 2009 2:24 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Blueskylaw: There are many situations in which the rights afforded physical medium does not translate directly to mediumless digital purchases. First sale doctrine/resale are virtually non-existant as well. As long as this is disclosed beforehand there is no problem here. Amazon's problem is that this was not disclosed/reserved.

$\"user-pic\"$

Gorphlog

October 3, 2009 2:10 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

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

$\"user-pic\"$

October 2, 2009 11:55 PM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: The big deal is that under the user agreement that Amazon itself had spelled out, Amazon did not retain the right to delete the book under any circumstances so their coopting of that right was viewed as a conversion of property the users had purchased. Amazon has a nascent market and needs to walk a fine line between publishers and users in order to maintain and grow that market... They were sloppy here but seem to have come out of it only a little worse for wear.

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

$\"user-pic\"$

chrylis

October 3, 2009 5:31 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

@Gorphlog: I fail to see why \"personal memories\" make any difference whatsoever to a clear breach of contract, but even if they did, at least one of the people whose book was deleted was a student who had written up significant notes for a term paper on it; the notes were wiped along with the book.

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

$\"user-pic\"$

djreedps

October 6, 2009 6:34 AM

Moderate |Flag for review

Amazon needs to treat its Kindle books like the paper books it sells. If Amazon can still delete Kindle books, then does that mean they would hunt you down and steal back the paper books you bought from them? Even if they gave you a complete refund for a paper book they were taking back from you against your will, would anyone stand for that?

Dump the Kindle.

");