Jeff Bezos Offers Apology For Erasing 1984 437
levicivita writes "From the down-but-not-out NYT comes an article (warning: login may be required) about user backlash against Kindle's embedded DRM: 'Last week, Jeffrey P. Bezos, chief executive of Amazon, offered an apparently heartfelt and anguished mea culpa to customers whose digital editions of George Orwell's "1984" were remotely deleted from their Kindle reading devices. Though copies of the books were sold by a bookseller that did not have legal rights to the novel, Mr. Bezos wrote on a company forum that Amazon's "'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles."' Bezos's post is here."
Responsibility to customers (Score:4, Insightful)
Amazon has refunded their customers according to the article, but if I was halfway through a book and it got deleted from my device I would be very annoyed. To me it seems that the better solution would be for Amazon to arrange the correct rights from the copyright holder and arrange some form of deal to make sure that those who have a copy of the book on their Kindle can continue to use it or receive a new copy with the proper rights and at no cost. In the end, the material was offered through their service and they do have responsibility to their customers, even if it is not illegal for them to use this solution.
The apology posted from Mr. Bezos sounds heartfelt indeed. I wonder how this will be handled in future incidents like this one. Unfortunately, in the Netherlands we do not have access to the Kindle. But even with the risks of allowing Amazon to retain control to remotely delete items you have purchased I would definitely be a customer for the device. I suppose that with products like these you have to decide whether you trust a supplier or not.
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Insightful)
For me, the "apology" doesn't sound heartfelt at all. It is easily written, doesn't cost much and makes good PR. It may be a smart and cheap move for the CEO, but it doesn't impress me. However, using the word solution - even in quotation marks - is impudent. One could call it "intrusion" or "encroachment" - maybe - but dispossessing people of something they paid for, because you made a mistake is not even near something you could call a "solution".
I know why I never wanted this DRM-ridden Kindle, now even more than before, but if something like this would happen to me I would be really really pissed.
When will they ever learn that DRM just means defective by design?
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Interesting)
>>>For me, the "apology" doesn't sound heartfelt at all.
Amazon's been going downhill rapidly. The whole "we can erase your books" philosophy is why I never bought a Kindle. I like to keep my books indefinitely, read them at least once, and then resell them to somebody else. A Kindle doesn't let you do the first or the last.
Of course the other possibility is that I'm biased against amazon. I was a seller on amazon for three years - nothing special - just selling my old books, games, or videos. I had a 100% rating until I made a mistake and violated a rule by selling a Zenith DTV Converter box (for some reason this is not allowed). They suspended my account, I apologized, and then was reinstated. I was careful to obey the rules but they suspended my account again saying, "You issued a $200 refund which exceeds our new selling standards." Well yeah. A guy bought a $200 air conditioner, then he changed his mind, so I politely and happily refunded the money. That's what you're supposed to do.
Long-story short they refused to listen and just kept saying refunding $200 is a lot of money an unacceptable. Now they are holding almost $500 of my money earned off previous sales, and won't return it to me. I can understand a temporary hold but almost half-a-year has passed.
Amazon is rapidly following the path to destruction that Ebay followed last year when it alienated its sellers.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure I paid more than the fair market value for everything covered by DRM that I've ever "owned"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that they have in the past hidden it's capabilities and hide the actual restrictions on any given book until they decide to make them known in rather irritating an
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Insightful)
what the fuck? seriously?
How does DRM solve the backup problem and whatever else for me? The ONLY purpose of DRM is to make sure they can deny access to a) pirates b) me, a paying customer WHENEVER THEY WANT.
There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.
The fact that steam does allow you to redownload your purchased digital goods is not because of DRM, but it is simply a service they offer. They could just as well offer it without DRM.
I know you will be modded insightful soon, but oh my god what a ignorant stance on DRM to have.
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:4, Insightful)
How does DRM solve the backup problem and whatever else for me? The ONLY purpose of DRM is to make sure they can deny access to a) pirates b) me, a paying customer WHENEVER THEY WANT
While I agree with this 100% because it is totally accurate and totally to the point...
There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.
I can't agree totally with this. DRM makes content that would otherwise be unavailable in a digital format available, only because some companies refuse to license their content unless it is protected by DRM.
If you don't like that company's stance, then don't pay for/license their content. Vote with your feet. It's what the free market is all about.
And now you know why I do not now, and nor will I ever, possess an Amazon Kindle. (Hear me Bezos?)
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Insightful)
There is NO FUCKING BENEFIT to the customer. EVER. Things are not cheaper, they are no easier to access - in fact the opposite is often true.
I can't agree totally with this. DRM makes content that would otherwise be unavailable in a digital format available, only because some companies refuse to license their content unless it is protected by DRM.
Your logic is terribly flawed. Let's make an analogy. "Oh, I refuse to give you food unless you become my slave". Would that make slavery good because it would give you food that would otherwise be unavailable to you?
My point is that you're praising DRM not because it is good in itself, but because you believe that it's necessary for companies to license content. Well, here's the news: It's NOT.
If you want to bend over to companies and say "Sure, I'll accept DRM just to read my favorite books on electronic format", you're practically giving away your money. What happens if a virus, or some hacker attack on DRM devices erases all your electronic books?
DRM has no benefit at all. It's a time bomb because it gives companies the means to do what they want to do with the books you have ALREADY purchased. It gives them money, and it jeopardizes your investment.
And when that happens, and you wonder whatever happened to the first sale doctrine, I'll be reading my paperback copy of 1984 while wondering what has become of the free world.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't agree totally with this. DRM makes content that would otherwise be unavailable in a digital format available, only because some companies refuse to license their content unless it is protected by DRM.
What happens if a virus, or some hacker attack on DRM devices erases all your electronic books?
Well, that's a problem with electronic media. Lack of DRM would just mean that if you happened to have a friend who also had that book, you could get another copy.
DRM is a problem because it puts control over your media into the hands of companies who exist to take as much of your money away as possible. I don't begrudge them that goal, but because I'm realistic about it, I'm careful about just how much of my neck I put into the noose.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah, it can hurt to admit, but for example by using DRM, Apple was able to get iTunes such huge market share that they could:
a) demonstrate to the music industry that online distribution was possible and profitable
b) after (a), force the industry's hand into getting them to remove the DRM, due to customer complaints and (maybe more importantly) customer's and apples' willingness to increase prices for the non-DRM versions of the songs
Likewise Valve has jump-started PC game digital distribution with Steam,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No. Continuing infringement would have been if Amazon continued to sell the eBook to other customers. They were already liable for the existing copies that were sold/distributed. Deleting those copies did not remove their liability. That infringement already occurred.
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:4, Interesting)
Up until the point where they - either "rightfully" or by accident - deny you accident to any game you bought on steam EVER. Or the company goes bankrupt or whatever else could happen.
Seriously, let's go as far and say you cheated in a multiplayer game once. They can suddenly take all the games you ever bought for good money away from you. It's just gone. Poof.
While it may have been wrong for you to cheat, should they really hold the power to take all the games you ever bought away from you with the flip of a byte?
Allowing you to redownload your games from your account can be done without DRM as well. Yes right now they are only willing to do it with DRM, but it could be done without. DRM is not a benefit, people need to learn this.
And before somebody complains - I buy all the games that I play (unless I quickly decide it's not for me - but then I stop playing). I just want to have control over my own games that I bought with my money. If I can't have that, I won't buy it.
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Insightful)
They really had no right to play police.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Once again we see big business showing nothing but disdain for their paying customers. When I was young, AT&T was the only company that acted like this, then the utility companies started, now all these companies act as if they had a monopoly.
After this, anyone who would buy a kindle or any other DRM infested book reader should have his or her head examined.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this why amazon offers DRM-free MP3s to its customers at lower prices than DRM-laden itunes (something like $0.75 per song on big albums)
There is no DRM on the iTunes store either. The price seems about even too - although as Amazon isn't even available, it's irrelevant for me and I only did a quick search and compared some Michael Jackson albums featured by both rather prominently. I'm sure they both have a varying selection of cheaper albums.
Re: (Score:2)
But iTunes is still $0.99 while (some?) songs on Amazon are $0.89.
Re I wonder how this will be handled in the future (Score:5, Insightful)
The statement, from Amazon's Drew Herdener, reads:
These books 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 customers' devices, and refunded customers....
We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances.
As highlighted by the WSJ, the case draws attention to an expectation gap between real books and their digital counterparts: the latter is simply a license to read the content on your device.
Re:Re I wonder how this will be handled in the fut (Score:2)
Those circumstances being when the books 1984 or Animal Farm are submitted improperly to our service.
Re: (Score:2)
Or so DRM advocates would have you believe. Copyright law just doesn't read that way. A copy of the book existed on the users' device before Amazon removed it. Amazon destroyed those copies. It's more practical for them to do this than for them to burn customer copies of real books they sold, but it's no different i
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Informative)
I never read with my wireless on. It's always off until I'm looking for a book, then I turn it on, go shopping, download, turn it off.
With the wireless on, the Kindle only can stay powered for days instead of weeks.
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Insightful)
How does that prevent them from deleting things the next time you go shopping?
The problem is that they have the ability to do that in the first place.
That's not the main problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
They may have the ability. But do they and should they have the legal right to do so?
Hackers have all sorts of abilities. They have the right to break into their own computers and delete their own data. But it's illegal in most countries for them to do it to other people's computers without permission.
So in this case:
1) Are all the Kindles owned by Amazon?
2) Is it reasonable to consider that the Kindle buyers have given Amazon the permission to do what they did?
3) Was the content/data illegally sold by Amazon or by someone else?
If Amazon was just providing a payment service like "Visa/Mastercard" and a shopping mall for shop owners to sell their stuff in, I don't see how that gives Amazon the right to stick their nose in other people's businesses and delete that content, just because it happens to be illegal. Go call the cops, or kickout the shop owners.
It's a different thing if the customers wanted to return the book for a refund (because somehow due to a screw up the wrong book was downloaded), then Amazon provides a "goods return and refunding" service for the customers and the shopowners to _voluntarily_ use.
I can hire a locksmith to go break into my house to return a book I took by mistake. But I'd be rather pissed off if the department store gets their guys over to do the same thing when I didn't ask them to.
Leave the breaking, entering and confiscation to the cops. Then at least we only need to worry about and keep an eye over just one bunch of thugs.
At the rate things go maybe in the future a General Genetic's franchisee might gene modify your wife, but then General Genetics sends thugs to "downgrade" her because they made a mistake. And go after your kids when they find out you had children - unauthorized reproduction of General Genetic's property.
So if Amazon has stepped out of line, they need to be smacked for it. You cannot just "leave it to the market", leaving it to the market means those with the most money have the most votes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How does that prevent them from deleting things the next time you go shopping?
this is going to hurt the feelings of the blue ray fans, but I don't care.
do you guys realize that each time you open a bd disk, it scans your hardware to see if you have 'non compliant' parts and it could, if it wants (its in the specs) disable your hardware.
each time you insert a disc, it does this. you cannot say no, you cannot opt out (unless you rip with anydvd).
people ask me when I'll get a bd system. never. its untrustab
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Interesting)
I would be beyond fucking annoyed -- I would call it what it fucking is: tresspassing. In U.S. Law - if someone ships you an item, on purpose or by accident, they can't demand it back (only unless a contract was signed beforehand hand and purchase doesnt fulfill it). It could be a thousand dollar ring, shipped to you by accident, doesn't matter. It's yours.
Amazon shipped the item. You, as the user of the device, purchased it, with your consent, and it went on the device. And then when Amazon found out it shouldn't have done that, did they pay the consequences to the copyright holder? No, without notice, they trespassed on your device to steal it back.
That's what it was. I don't care if it's covered by some unsigned EULA and just because it's on the digital world. The corporates made plenty sure that Congress covered their ass with computer laws. We as private citizens should have the same rights.
This is hacking and trespassing in it's most basic fucking form.
[quote]The apology posted from Mr. Bezos sounds heartfelt indeed.[/quote]
If Gandhi had #1 product on Amazon get a slew of hundreds of 1 star ratings in days, a good 10% of the ratings that were already posted over months, killing sales, he too would be able to do some convincing crocodile tears.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I would be beyond fucking annoyed -- I would call it what it fucking is: tresspassing. In U.S. Law - if someone ships you an item, on purpose or by accident, they can't demand it back (only unless a contract was signed beforehand hand and purchase doesnt fulfill it). It could be a thousand dollar ring, shipped to you by accident, doesn't matter. It's yours.
Coincidentally, Amazon has tried similar shenanigans in the past. A minor error on their website turned a DVD promotion of buy 1, get the next one 50% off to buy 1, get the next one free. They corrected the error on their website but still shipped orders up to three days later.
A month or so goes by and they threatened everyone that received shipment with an ultimatum - return it or pay what amazon thinks you should have paid. They even went so far as to actually charge some people's credit cards for the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You don't seem to understand, breaching a computer system, unauthorized access to a computer through a network is a felony. I doubt any of the Kindle owners ever signed an Eula (at purchase????) and authorized Amazon to take the book off. Maybe I'm wrong, and at the purchase of every book there is an Eula
Re:how would damages exceed your purchase price? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe I'm wrong, and at the purchase of every book there is an Eula that says they get to fuck you in the ass and have the resulting baby from it too.
Ah, the sad state of sex education today...
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Insightful)
The police come and take it, with warrant. Not the person who sold it to you - they would be charged with trespassing/theft if they did. And if the police confiscate it, you'll have your day in court if you want it back.
Amazon isn't the police. It does not have the right to act as if were.
Re: (Score:2)
It would also have caused a lot fewer raised eyebrows. Can you see Mr. DRMClueless wonder:
"What? THEY can erase books on MY reader?"
His apology maybe sounded heartfelt. But I'm sure it was more to silence that voice in their customer's head telling them that their device ain't entirely theirs.
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Insightful)
Your being too nice about it.
Amazon has revealed by their actions that they have back doored the kindle, they are able to do what they wish with it and you can't do a thing about it.
They have violated their customers privacy and made a mockery of the first principle of buying anything if you paid for it its yours not theirs.
If it was a service that you bought then perhaps it would be almost acceptable , you would generally be able to terminate the contract if you didn't wish to continue.
At the very least Amazon customers should be able to return the kindle and get a full refund on the kindle and the books they bought. Thats all kindle owners because the sale was a fraud and a complete breach of trust.
Who knows just what has and can be transmitted from your kindle back to Amazon.
Sincere apologies don't cut it, Amazon deserve to be sued in court and punitive damages awarded. The only reasonable action would have been for amazon to ask for users to delete the copies, like with any other product recall it is up to the customer to comply or not. Instead Amazon has tipped its hand by demonstrating the control they have over the kindles which are no longer the property of Amazon.
I don't see how anyone can fail to see how outrageous Amazons actions are.
The only issue is just what charges apply in a case like this because this is absolutely unheard of.
What I can't believe is there is not one negative post to Jeff Bezos's apology you would almost think that someone was filtering any incoming posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonetheless, I just remain amazed that they didn't put this out earlier, right on top of the news curve, along with giving every person involved a free copy of a legit rendition of the book(s) they had bought. It would not have be
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A simpler solution would be to negotiate with the publishers. Perhaps not to have distribution rights in the future, but retroactive distribut
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Informative)
In any case, you can get a free copy of 1984 and Animal Farm without any DRM from Gutenberg Australia
http://gutenberg.net.au/plusfifty-n-z.html#orwell [gutenberg.net.au]
You won't break any Australian laws by downloading it, but the laws where you are may be different.
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:5, Informative)
BTW, you know, you don't have to leave the wireless on. And it reads unencrypted Mobipocket books with ease. And there's the Magic Catalog of Project Gutenberg E-books [freekindlebooks.org] that will allow you to download any Gutenberg ebook directly to your kindle, free, via the wireless web interface.
Kindle books can be bought anonymously by using a throwaway email account with gift certificates (available from any Western Union location aka your nearest gas station, or via those Coinstar coin-counting machines, which don't charge a percentage if you get a gift card), and most of them can have their DRM stripped with ease (mobidedrm is what you're looking for; it's a painful process that works for the Kindle, when you're Googling.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Responsibility to customers (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530 [amazon.com]
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 guess that since they returned the money, the assumed a defacto reverse logic to the terms of their agreement. How many times in logic courses was it emphasized that:
if a then b
does not necessarily mean
if b then a
I guess they missed that lesson
However... further down in the TOS they state (as will be an argument for their defense):
No Illegal Use and Reservation of Rights. You may not use the Device, the Service or the Digital Content for any illegal purpose. You acknowledge that the sale of the Device to you does not transfer to you title to or ownership of any intellectual property rights of Amazon or its suppliers. All of the Software is licensed, not sold, and such license is non-exclusive.
and to be clear, they define software as
4. Software: Definitions. The following terms apply to the Device and to (a) all software (and the media on which such software is distributed) of Amazon or third parties that is pre-installed on the Device at time of purchase or that Amazon provides as updates/upgrades to the pre-installed software (collectively, the "Device Software"), unless you agree to other terms as part of an update/upgrade process; and (b) any printed, on-line or other electronic documentation for such software (the "Documentation"). As used in this Agreement, "Software" means, collectively, the Device Software and Documentation.
Therefore the content (the book) is not defined as software, and therefore the content, in their own words, is OWNED not licensed.
For those who had this book removed, you have been stolen from and should press charges. If someone breaks into your house, takes your PS3, and leaves $400 cash where it was, does that mean they are not stealing?
the cat (Score:4, Insightful)
is out of the bag now Bezos
i was interested in a DX but now ill just get a laptop
this is yet another reason not to buy a kindle, how many other geeks out there feel same way now ?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. I will never, ever purchase a Kindle after they delete copies of the book. When I own a book, I want to own the thing, if not actually the copyright to the text inside.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No more book burning when the political winds change. They can just reach out and books no longer exist. This is a good example for why DRM should be avoided.
Amazon's solution was: (Score:5, Insightful)
"'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles."
You forgot ironic. The big brother connotations on this scandal makes the whole story somewhat funny even.
Re:Amazon's solution was: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
More Ironic: The Censored Preface to Animal Farm (Score:5, Informative)
Slightly offtopic, but many people don't know Orwell's original introduction to the Animal Farm was censored because it was anti-Soviet. It's a telling sign of how easy it is to get the entire media to wholly invest in obvious lies at the order of government and business interests. The enemy of my enemy...
The servility with which the greater part of the English intelligentsia have swallowed and repeated Russian propaganda from 1941 onwards would be quite astounding if it were not that they have behaved similarly on several earlier occasions. On one controversial issue after another the Russian viewpoint has been accepted without examination and then publicized with complete disregard to historical truth or intellectual decency. To name only one instance, the BBC celebrated the twenty-fifth anniversary of the Red Army without mentioning Trotsky. This was about as accurate as commemorating the battle of Trafalgar without mentioning Nelson, but it evoked no protest from the English intelligentsia. In the internal struggles in the various occupied countries, the British press has in almost all cases sided with the faction favoured by the Russians and libelled the opposing faction, sometimes suppressing material evidence in order to do so.
http://home.iprimus.com.au/korob/Orwell.html [iprimus.com.au]
It would be 1984 (Score:5, Funny)
It would be 1984 they do this to. To quote Bart Simpson "The ironing is delicious".
Re: (Score:2)
It couldn't have happened to a more appropriate book.
Farenheit 451 (Score:5, Interesting)
Just got a lot cooler with a hot gadget like the Kindle.
Three Words (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
used book store
Shouldn't that be two words? Used bookstore.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey there, Dan Quayle! I didn't know you were posting under a pseudonym on /.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
one word: library
Talk is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)
If Amazon truly wanted to fix their mistake, they would restore the book to the affected Kindles (and work out a deal with the rightholders themselves, maybe).
Re:Talk is cheap (Score:4, Informative)
You're missing the point: the reason they deleted them in the first place was because the seller did not have the rights to the novel. I agree that making a snap judgment to erase them was not the right move, but until they work out some other arrangement, simply "giving the books back" is not an option.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If the same had happened with someone not having the right to print physical books, would they have taken the books back?
And even if you want to make the receiving stolen goods analogy, the point is that it's the job of the police and courts to do that, not a private company.
The OP is correct to say talk is cheap. "Oh sorry, I took your book. Btw you're not getting it back". It's not actually an apology.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point: the reason they deleted them in the first place was because the seller did not have the rights to the novel. I agree that making a snap judgment to erase them was not the right move, but until they work out some other arrangement, simply "giving the books back" is not an option.
He could at least point to Project Gutenberg, which offers the same book for free.
Plenty of points to be missed (Score:5, Insightful)
The right of first sale, The purchaser bought the book in good faith. The seller, who sold illegally can turn over the list of people they sold that book to, and the police can track down all those people and confiscate their kindles while an expert deletes the book from each of them. If the consumers had purchased dead tree copies of the book that Amazon had sold illegally, Amazon would not be allowed to trespass into each person's house and remove the book. So why is it that they are allowed to trespass into our digital property and steal (as in I paid and had it, now I don't) from us?
Unfortunately, that would be costly and expensive, so instead they just overstep their bounds and deleted the files themselves. While claiming that the customers had only purchased a revocable license to read the content of the book.
Personally, I'd really like to see some of these cases of license to view content vs sale of property get into a court. Because as it stands now, consumers are on the significantly shorter end of the stick. Heck I'd love to see Congress be proactive, but the odds of that happening are about slim to nil.
-Rick
Re:Talk is cheap (Score:4, Insightful)
So you're saying whenever someone jumps on Amazon and starts selling books that they don't own, Amazon has to go replace those books with legit copies?
Re:Talk is cheap (Score:5, Insightful)
If they sold paper copies of books where the publisher didn't have the publishing rights, would they come to every customer who bought the book and take it away?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you're saying whenever someone jumps on Amazon and start selling books they don't own, Amazon has the rights to go to your house, lock themselves in, steal back the illegal copy and leave?
While none of these solutions are good solution, I thinkreplacing the books would be the most appropriate solution. Since the customers have paid for these books, Amazon (and the vendor who f***ed up) have gotten paid enough to barter a deal with the rights holder to make these copies legal.
Re: (Score:2)
They got a refund too. That is more material than a free apology. Agreed, it's the least they could do, but still, it's a pretty big piece of the story that's missing from TFS and TFA.
It's about as material as a burglar who steals a book from your night stand and leaves some money in exchange. You still feel violated. The excuse that the bookstore where you bought it didn't have the right to sell it, doesn't make it okay to take the book back from you, who bought it in good faith.
Apology Nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Apology Nothing... (Score:5, Informative)
Refunds if you buy the wrong book. They do offer them.
It's still sketchy as hell (Score:2)
"We apologise for the sacking of your books. Those responsible for sacking your books, have been sacked."
MiniTruth: This warn you. (Score:5, Informative)
1984 declared non-purchase.
Read is thoughtcrime.
Re:MiniTruth: This warn you. (Score:5, Insightful)
Orwell himself gives a solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Out of line with principles? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this is out of line with Amazon's principles, then why does the technology to remotely delete books exist?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because there's little difference in deleting those files and doing an system update?
Re:Out of line with principles? (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe because there's little difference in deleting those files and doing an system update?
Wrong. I expect system updates to affect /bin, /sbin. /usr, /etc, /lib, and so on (or whatever the equivalent for the Kindle are). I DO NOT expect system updates to do ANYTHING to /home, which is where the books should be stored. So a system update procedure that allows it to mess with MY FILES is clearly bug-infested. The Kindle software totally sucks if it can do this.
And I agree with the comments that say the "apology" is nothing more than lip-service. I will NEVER buy any e-books (or e-anything-else) from Amazon. I may trust them to the extent of buying PAPER books, plastic CDs and DVDs, etc., if they break into my house to take those back I at least have the option of calling the cops!
Kindle Protocol (Score:2)
Here's a dump of the protocol Kindle uses to communicate with the Amazon servers:
times 17.3.84 bb speech malreported africa rectify
times 19.12.83 forecasts 3 yp 4th quarter 83 misprints verify current issue
times 14.2.84 miniplenty malquoted chocolate rectify
times 3.12.83 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling
If he only had a heart... (Score:5, Insightful)
I doubt he'd have a single "heartfelt" thing to say if he wasn't dragged over the hot coals of the net.
Repeat after me: Death to DRM. (Score:5, Insightful)
Repeat after me: Death to DRM. Terminate all instances of DRM in all cases. The user's content is the user's fair use. Resist DRM until death
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I still can get the content on dead trees. Without DRM.
"stupid, thoughtless and... (Score:2)
HEY BEZOS: PEOPLE OWN WHAT THEY PAY FOR.
kulakovich
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
HEY BEZOS: PEOPLE OWN WHAT THEY PAY FOR.
I just paid a friend a penny for the entire western hemisphere.
Now GET OFF MY LAND!
I won't take a Kindle even for free ... (Score:2, Interesting)
... until they can convince me beyond reasonable doubt that they removed the ability to delete books on their customer's devices.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, see the wireless button? Turn that off.
You now have a Kindle that Amazon will never be able to delete stuff from. When are you placing your order?
Re: (Score:2)
So the only purpose of the wireless functionality is to delete books? Surely not.
Wouldn't the same thing happen when you sync your kindle via USB? Even if this is not the case - disabling wireless would severely limit the device and remove functionality you paid for. You can't seriously suggest that is a reasonable option.
Clowning around (Score:2, Funny)
"Believe what you say while you are saying it" (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure Mr. Bezos can afford advisors who know that that is the key to "sincerity" and can coach him on how to achieve it.
However, they still consciously and deliberately designed their system so as to allow them to remove material from Kindle owners' machines without their knowledge or permission. Why would anyone trust a company that would do that? Have they removed that functionality and explained why it was there in the first place?
They deleted the wrong book (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The correct action would have been to set fire to the kindles in that case.
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Bezos is wrong (Score:2)
Jeff Bezos is wrong, Amazon's "'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles." is not a correct statement. DRM use was " the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles.". OK, maybe not out of line with their principles, they are the purveyors of the 1-click patent if you recall.
As it just goes to show, if you pay for digital media, you get screwed. If you pirate it, you get a demonstrably and provably better product, albeit
Forgiveness vs Permission (Score:3, Insightful)
A wise person once said "sometimes it is easier to seek forgiveness than permission". I think that we are seeing that phrase in action.
So will people get "1984" back? (Score:2)
The free market will handle this (Score:2)
Principles (Score:3, Insightful)
[the] 'solution' to the problem was stupid, thoughtless and painfully out of line with our principles
Principles aren't something that you talk about, they are something that you do.
And Amazon certainly stood behind it's principles when it wiped the book, by acting.
The only thing Amazon is upset about is the backlash from consumers against their actual principles.
So, they go on to say "oh, no! we REALLY have these different principles, pay no attention to what we actually did".
You have to wonder if Jeff actually wrote it, or if the PR and marketing departments had their hand in the piece. That would be another "principle" derived from actions. Perhaps a good writing fingerprint program could tell you...
Regards.
This is exactly what has to happen. (Score:3, Insightful)
Bullshit! (Score:3, Insightful)
If Amazon really cared about their customers, they'd remove the facility that allows them to delete user content from user devices.
Even the capacity is unthinkable. Amazon is always trying to see just how much invasiveness they can get away with.
There are other aggregators out there . . .
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard that working at Amazon is a high pressure enviroment. Does anyone here know if that's true?
Re:Who would have thought? (Score:5, Insightful)
It cannot possibly have been a "brain fart". The decision to design the system so as to make this sort of thing possible has to have been conscious and deliberate. Giving their managers to the power to remove material from your Kindle was clearly a policy decision.
Re:Who would have thought? (Score:4, Informative)
As I said upthread, they should have given all of these people a legit copy of the book at their own expense when they realized what happened, but it's entirely possible that this was an unforeseen consequence of the system. Personally, I'd rather it just didn't allow refunds, and told you to be careful what you bought, but I'm not Amazon.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
they did already
http://boingboing.net/2009/07/20/amazons-orwellian-de.html [boingboing.net]
it was the works of orwell that were removed.
not just one book
Re:Read the book free here (Score:4, Informative)
This gets more absurd (and ironic).
You can read the book free this web site. http://www.george-orwell.org/1984 [george-orwell.org]
Pssst! Only people from Oceania are allowed to read it... If you read it as an Eurasian, you have committed thought crime and must purge it from your brain!
(This is because Australia had a Life+50 copyright policy until 2004, so Orwell, Woolfe, Lovecraft and others are in the public domain. No longer, alas -- the US government have "convinced" them to adapt Life+70...)