Making sense of the '1984' Kindle kerfuffle
Oh, for heaven's sake. Everyone from CNET to The New York Times is up in arms over Amazon's recent decision to remotely delete copies of two George Orwell novels it sold to Kindle owners on behalf of an independent publisher.
But not even the usually sensible David Pogue of the Times appears to have done any actual research on the subject. Am I the only blogger in the world who cares about getting the facts right instead of just going for the quick and easy chance to smear Amazon? Or just the only one who can see the obvious?
It was instantly apparent to me what must have happened, so I looked into it. From stories posted on other sites, and from my own research on Amazon.com, it's clear the books in question had been published illegally--and not by the publisher with U.S. rights for these books, which are still under copyright protection in this country.
The listing for the illegal copy of "1984" is still present on Amazon, though it can no longer be purchased. The page for "Animal Farm" from the same publisher still appears in Google's listings, but is no longer available on Amazon--though another pirated copy is still listed but not purchasable. (I'm not sure these are exactly the same copies at issue in this case, but at least that copy of "1984" was yanked in the same way, according to an Amazon customer discussion.)
Note the caveat placed on the 1984 page by the publisher:
"This work is in the public domain in Canada, Australia, and other countries. It may still be copyrighted in some countries. The user should determine whether the work is in the public domain in their own country before using it."
But of course, verifying the copyright status of a book isn't just the user's responsibility. It's the publisher's, too, and Amazon's.
When Amazon discovered these unauthorized sales, it did the right thing: it reversed them.
The police would do the same thing if they discovered a stolen car in your driveway: just take it away. You never owned it.
Amazon was stupid not to explain the situation. It should have explained long ago its ability to remotely delete inappropriately distributed books, and it should have explained what and why it was doing that in the present case.
But this isn't an argument against e-book readers in general or the Kindle or DRM technology in particular. (This case had nothing to do with DRM).
In truth, this case shows another benefit of digital distribution and remote management: they make it more difficult for greedy pirates to make money at the expense of others.
Update: Literally while I was writing this story, The New York Times published a real article (not just a blog post) explaining the situation, which is exactly as I've stated here.
Somewhat regrettably, I think, Amazon has pledged to stop doing what it did in this case--which was, I think exactly the right thing to do, however inadequate its explanation was.
Peter N. Glaskowsky is a computer architect in Silicon Valley and a technology analyst for the Envisioneering Group. He has designed chip- and board-level products in the defense and computer industries, managed design teams, and served as editor in chief of the industry newsletter "Microprocessor Report." He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. 
The car example that fits in would be of a rented car I would say. If you find that the car you rented is a stolen car, you are fine as long as the rental company replaces it with another rental car when they take it back. Not fine if you are left in the middle of the road without a transportation.
If there were legal editions of the book available online, Amazon should have at least authorised the users to use those editions of the book. It doesn't matter which publisher it is, as long as the content can be delivered.
Anyway, Amazon probably only made a fraction of a dollar from each of these sales, not hardly enough to let it buy customers a legit copy. (The legal copy of 1984 in the Kindle store is $9.99.)
The bottom line here is that the sale was never legal, so reversing it was exactly the right thing to do.
I agree that the legal copy had to be expensive, but on the hindsight if people decide not to buy kindle because of the control Amazon has over it, Amazon is losing more business and money than it would have if it granted the access to the legal copy.
Well, you get my point..
In this case, someone actually tried to make money by selling bogus copies of Orwell's books.
Commercial piracy exactly like stealing and selling cars: the legitimate owner loses something (the chance to make money by selling the books), the thief gets something unearned, and the buyer gets left with nothing.
At least in this case, Amazon was able to undo the damage all the way around-- which shows the advantage of remotely managed platforms.
Your analogy is unfortunately unsound.
First, Amazon.com is not the POLICE. Therefore, it does NOT have any authority to pull a stolen car away from your driveway. Amazon.com is a seller of goods. No seller of goods in this country has that kind of right or authority. Even if Amazon availed itself to the powers of the court, it would still require a law enforcement agency to enforce a court order to recover/remove the goods in question.
Second, if there is a stolen car somewhere on your property that is out of the public's view, the police would need to obtain a warrant from a Court (if the police knew that you have it) BEFORE it can come onto your property and haul it away.
Third, if it was indeed the right thing for to do what it did as you suggest, then the ISPs would be right to hack into people's computers to remove "illegal copies" of music/video files at the behest of the rights owners.
Can you see the problems in your analogy?
Just the fact that the mechanism is there is enough to keep me away from any such device.
Justified or not, legal or not, the fact that I can lose data (of any kind) at the will and whim of another entity is something that I prefer to avoid at all costs.
When I shopped in the Kindle store, I automatically assumed that Amazon has checked to make sure the books they offered were legal copies before they took my money. How silly of me. Instead, I should have been scouring the web pages and checking copyright laws in various countries prior to purchasing. Because it's not like Amazon is a large corporation who not only makes a profit off my e-book purchases or has a vested interest in the success of digital books. Oh wait, ....
Not to mention that much of the "kerfluffle" could have been avoided by Amazon being straight up with those us who had our books erased. I'm betting that the PR folks didn't talk to Pogue when he called because they didn't know what was going on or how to respond.
I'll enjoy reading this as an HBR crisis communications case study in a few years of "how not to." Pity too, because Bezos has vested so much energy into convincing the public that e-books are just as good if not better than printed matter.
It's true, Amazon lets anyone publish a Kindle book on Amazon's Kindle store without prior approval by Amazon. You could do it yourself, probably in ten or fifteen minutes. I've been browsing around, and it looks like disreputable people have published all kinds of things on the Kindle store that have been subsequently discovered by Amazon and deleted from the service. Apparently this is hardly the first time Amazon has remotely deleted these bogus books from customers' Kindles, too.
It's just the first time big-name bloggers have jumped on Amazon's case about it, probably because they were too busy savoring the delicious irony that comes from George Orwell's involvement to worry about the facts.
I know many folks will disagree with me, but I want Amazon to police the stuff they sell, so I don't have to worry about it. But then, I don't mind paying more than $9.99 for a book if I want to read it badly either. If I wanted to create work for myself , I'd have bought a different reader and spent days formatting open source self-published or Gutenberg books to read. Yuck.
I will never buy any reader that does not give me complete control over what gets added, what gets removed, and how it is displayed. If that means never having any reader at all, so be it. If everyone thought as I do, we wouldn't have to put up with DRM, but it is apparent that I'm in the minority.
Entertaining and apropos reading material: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
All this would be easily taken care of if they'd just go back to requiring copyrights to be registered, so that they could be easily tracked and verified. Benefits: any content could be easily verified to be under copyright or not, and if it is, those who wished to publish it could easily verify the correct owner and royalty mechanisms. But alas, this doesn't serve the interests of those who wish to control the content, because it requires that they maintain copyrights on all their "property".
I do wonder whether Amazon refunded the money? I expect so.
Maybe people wouldn't be getting their panties in a bunch if Amazon hand bothered to put out why the did that in the emails to everyone who got their books taken away. As it stands nothing. Amazon didn't put out any PR on the topic.
It looks like this has happened several times before. Really, I think it's just the irony of the Orwell connection that got people to make such a big deal of it this time around.
There is a huge flaw in that argument.
Piracy only removes money from pockets if it's carried out by those with money to burn. If I take a CD, rip it onto my machine, burn a copy and give it to someone who couldn't afford to purchase it anyway, has the copyright owner lost any revenue?
Now, imagine the person who can't afford that CD has never heard that artist before. That person now has a reason to save up so they can go out and buy a ticket to a live show, maybe just buy a shirt in support of that artist. Now the artist has gained revenue where as, without piracy, they wouldn't have. Piracy has become advertisement.
Then you can take into account the numbers shown for many of the top pirated movies of all time, such as Dark Knight and Wolverine. Ticket sales for Dark Knight were tremendous, people went to see the movie in theatres in droves. However, it was also at the top of torrent sites from the moment it was released and possibly before the release date. Wolverine was the same way, leaked to the public before it was even finished, still made a huge profit, past the projections if I remember right.
The copyright holders aren't losing revenue, they're just losing revenue from the crap because now people can preview it.
Amazon's mistake was to create an e-book reader that let them remove content in the first place. E-book readers should work like physical books: you buy a book, you control it. And if Amazon sells something they shouldn't have, they should have to do what they do when the same case arises with physical books (probably pay compensation).
Amazon returned the buyers' money. What more do they deserve? By what bizarre legal theory do you conclude that a person who buys a stolen e-book for 99 cents deserves a legitimate $9.99 copy of the same book?
Also, why SHOULD e-books work just like physical books? If you want something just like a physical book, why not buy a physical book? There must be a reason you bought the e-book instead: it was different from a physical book, not exactly the same. Sure, a company could make its mission to make e-books work just like physical books, but clearly Amazon decided not to.
The book is old. And, indeed, the copyright on the book has expired in some countries. If you live in Canada and bought the book, then did Amazon steal legal property from you? I think they did.
As for the copyright in the US, it was very short back when the book was first published (1949). Was it 14 years? I don't know, but it certainly was not more than 50. Over the years, congress has made changes to the copyright laws, now allowing works to be protected for as much as 120 years, I think.
There is a problem with these changes in the law, though. It is OK to introduce changes that allow new things to be protected longer. However, to retroactively go back and protect works that were created at a time when the copyright law did not grant such lengths of time sounds like an ex post facto law in my opinion. And, the US constitution forbids such laws.
So, is this book protected by copyright in the United States? If the book were published under the laws today, sure. But, it was published when the laws were very different.
Really?
I realize you work for CNET and thus are ignorant, by definition, but you should still know better.
But there are other issues in play here. Cops who take a car from your driveway can't enter your house and take books from your shelf without a search warrant. Are you really untroubled by the intrusiveness and the ease with which this can be done?
If a publisher alters an edition because of a lawsuit, will all the sold Kindle copies be replaced with the conformed edition? Will Kindle whisk forbidden books away from Chinese purchasers when the PRC leaders demand it? Don't laugh -- internet service providers and computer manufacturers are acting in accordance with that government's thought control.
Unoffending Orwell readers must feel as if their computers have been broken into. Did Apple ever whisk a music file out of anybody's Itunes library?
Stolen property doesn't become yours just because you paid someone for it. Especially not when you pay much less than the legal price. In this case, 10% of list. How's that fair for anyone?
Apple confirmed last August that it has the ability to remotely delete iPhone applications when necessary. There was a similar controversy at the time. Soon forgotten, apparently.
If there were a record showing that you bought a stolen thing then the police would EASILY be able to get a warrant to search your home for the stolen property.
Interesting. I wasn't aware that Amazon.com had police powers. Apparently, I missed the news.
There are many things that companies/groups/organizations/etc. CAN do, and also many things that they DECIDE to do.
However, that in no what changes what they SHOULD do.
"It's their responsibility not to be receivers of stolen goods"
Why not go back to the person who caused this in the first place, the pirate? Amazon's not punishing their customers, only the pirate. Just fixing a mistake on their part. If you expect their content to be 100% legal, they'd have to employ a massive army of book checkers, etc. like Apple, and we all know how that turned out. Even with the army there were inconsistencies and mistakes.
Thank Amazon that they allow the content to actually GET to the store in the first place. If you're so concerned about censorship and whatnot, then why do you insist they be STRICTER when allowing content in?
@IvaFayeKname: the police don't necessarily just go around looking for stolen cars. The person whose car got stolen (person or company) would likely notify the police so that they can take back the car for them. But likely the person/company would take back the car themselves right? If the could? Amazon devised a way that they can skip the police and do it themselves. IMO a much more efficient way of dealing with things. So long as it's legal, public, and limited to their own devices. Yes, they could have disclosed more info than they did, but we already established that.
The material wasn't pirated, it was public domain in many countries, just not the US. The problem didn't come in until the material was shown to have been sold by Amazon to US buyers.
What should be done for instances such as this is for there to be a little space to be marked by the book provider that says "public domain". Then it's up to Amazon to check if that book is indeed public domain for each country. If it's not marked public domain then it's up to Amazon to check if the publisher has rights for that book.
In no way was that book pirated, it was just "sold out of zone".
Your "stolen car in the driveway" analogy is misleading. Amazon is not a law enforcement entity with government-specified powers. They are a vendor. A more apt analogy would be Best Buy entering my home while I was away to take back the "open box" TV I bought because they discovered it was stolen.
Allowing technology vendors unrestricted access to the devices they sell sets a dangerous precedent. Should Microsoft be allowed to delete programs from your computer if they think they are pirated? Can Verizon remove a phone number from your phone if it was illegally leaked? Should Apple be able to delete an App from your iPhone because they decide it doesn't meet their "good taste" requirements?
The world of digital data transfer and copyright licensing is in flux as the world continues to move online. Ignoring invasions into personal privacy by private corporations is dangerously short-sighted.
And users give Amazon certain permissions through the user agreement. Lawyers may end up deciding whether Amazon had THIS permission, but certainly the customers here have no legal leg to stand on. There was never a legal sale, and there was no doubt about that. Amazon didn't just delete all copies of 1984. It deleted copies of exactly one specific file that it knew was pirated.
Get over it.
If some are wanting a replacement '1984' book, they deserve it. Why? They did what most people do when buying from Amazon, eBay, or any other online retailer, they sorted the searched results for the cheapest offering on the US Amazon site (I'm assuming is was the US Amazon site here...and I know what they say about that), and then they in good faith bought said e-book (not to mention the high priced Kindle, which raises the question: do they really own the Kindle...better check out the EULA that came with IT). Pretty simple and very commonplace now. Why pay more for the same thing if it can be had cheaper? If this was not so commonplace and customer driven, then lowest price/highest price search bullets would never have been created, IMHO.
As for the dreaded EULA, you are right on, those things make for some very funny yet painful reading. If you don't believe me, just try out this excellent free software EULAlyze.
Observe how you spent an entire paragraph attacking Peter, while he spent a 3 word sentence attacking Shyft.
But in this case, to make it a true analogy, Best Buy takes your TV back AND refunds your money.
This would be better off for you, because otherwise the police could find out it was stolen, and if so, THEY could take it, and since it was stolen, you get NOTHING. If you buy stolen property, in legal terms, you are entitled to DIDDLY SQUAT if it is seized.
"This work is in the public domain in Canada, Australia, and other countries. It may still be copyrighted in some countries. The user should determine whether the work is in the public domain in their own country before using it."
You made that exact quote. The books were not stolen property, they were sold out of zone. There's a huge difference.
On the one hand this does make me feel a lot better about not buying a Kindle, on the other hand I'm afraid that this will give other manufacturers similar ideas, on the gripping hand this will probably turn into another Sony rootkit fiasco which may benefit consumers with awareness of Amazon's draconian policies.
So are you saying that it's just fine if I find a bunch of pirates selling things OR vendors accidentally (or purposely) selling pirated material, buy that, then store them in my home and rest assured that I can not get in trouble because if someone tries to take anything back it's their fault for breaking into my house?
Yes, I know in the Amazon case it's not the customer's fault for BUYING the material, but you could say it's their fault for picking Amazon in the first place if they actually considered their policy. That being said it's not Amazon's fault either. I feel like the same argument has been made way too many times. It really isn't a big deal.
Summary:
Pirate sneaks stolen goods into store. Customer buys goods because they are cheaper than other goods. Store realizes that the goods were illegal. Store apologizes (did Amazon? I'm not sure) that the goods were in their store, even though it wasn't them who did it. Store corrects situation. Customer is refunded (nothing lost!) and pirate no longer makes unearned money.
That was said WAY BACK IN THE ACTUAL ARTICLE. But instead it's become this huge "issue" about privacy, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. AS THE AUTHOR ALREADY SAID: it's turned out good that Amazon could do that, because it makes the process swift and easy.
For those of you who say the people still OWN the book, look at it this way: they ACCIDENTALLY STOLE THE BOOK. Completely accidentally. The customer didn't do anything wrong. Besides, if you accidentally bought an item stolen from a friend, would you not WANT to give it back to your friend?
The exact same thing? They came into people's houses with guns?
When you buy a Kindle, you agree to give Amazon permission to come into that Kindle. It's there in the license agreement. Don't like that? Then don't buy it.
Also, Amazon did not simply delete the book; they gave the money back.
I'm a little bit baffled at why people are getting bent out of shape over this. Every single Kindle purchaser has given consent for Amazon to do what they did. If you don't think it's acceptable, why did you consent to the arrangement in the first place? If you don't want to give consent to this, then...
Don't.
Buy.
A.
Kindle.
If you DO buy a Kindle, you have given consent. Where's the issue? This is the way the free market operates; Amazon makes a product, the product comes with a license agreement; if people don't like the license agreement they don't buy the product.
I purchased THE ONLY KINDLE VERSION OF ANIMAL FARM AVAILABLE AT THE TIME (not just the cheapest... I bought the $9.99 (legit) version of 1984 and it is still on there and if back in December when I bought it I would have bought the more expensive version).
I received an email saying I was getting a refund, NO REASON WHY. I contacted Amazon and the reason was "There is something wrong with the book" and no more.
My issue here is that there is that amazon does not say anywhere in their ToS or EULA that they are able to perform these "removal" actions.
I am not upset about them taking action to remove stolen goods from their service, I am upset about their lack of communication about the problem, the way they violated my device by auto removing a book that I purchased (I could have taken a free copy off the web and manually transferred it to the device and not had to deal with this garbage).
If Amazon had told me when I bought my Kindle that they could perform these actions, again I would not be upset.
My problems with their actions are purely based on the fact that AMAZON VIOLATED THEIR OWN TERMS OF SERVICE BY DOING WHAT THEY DID. If you or I did anything like this, we would have been banned from using the service or sued.
So now this makes me worried about what other purchases I made (I have over 100 books I have bought on my Kindle) and as to their legitimacy and weather or not I will wake up tomorrow to find them missing as well.
If they had asked me to delete it and explained the reasons and upon deletion would refund me my purchase price, I would have complied.
No one has the right to enter my house and take anything from it without my consent -- not the police, and especially not Amazon.com.
Let us imagine for a moment that amazon would unknowingly sell a paperback 1948 book without proper copyright in place, and deliver some 100 copies of it.
Now the publisher demands that those books are removed, since they are in the breach of copyright which he owns. Amazon promptly complies and removes them from their virtual shelves.
But what with the books I already received and paid? They can ask me to return them for a refund, but no way in hell they can force me. It is amazon's problem if I say, "thank you, but I bought this book, it is mine now." They have to cover damages to the publisher since they published "pirated" book.
No way have they the authorization to break into my home, get the book and leave me check. NOT without a court order.
So you see - this is BIG problem with DRM. Electronic books, movies, whatever are NOTHING like physical copy, as soon as they are DRMed. So please stop spreading this nonsense that this has nothing to do with DRM. What amazon did, was equivalent of stealing the book from the user homes - because DRM left them door open to do this.
And no one can be sure when they will invoke this "backdoor trick" again. If you buy paper books then you can be pretty sure they will not do anything like this.
I planned to buy kindle as soon as it reaches EU, but now I have serious reservations. Who wants to buy a bookshelf of books, maybe $1000s in value and then be exposed to risk that the entire collection disappears at amazon's whim?
What amazon should do is exactly analogous to the paper books: they should kindly ask people to return the books in exchange for a refund, and perhaps additional goodies, so there would be an incentive to comply.
IT DOES NOT MATTER, that they have technological posibility to bypass all that - after all, they cannot take my paper books back only because they can (for example because I have left the door unlocked!)
If Amazon starts going through the books YOU put on your Kindle and deleting the ones it doesn't like, fine, complain all you want. But that isn't what happened here. Stop acting like it was.
And the crack of Maroon is out of place.
Research of Peter shows that he may have un-disclosed bias. Senior management positions in high tech companies suggests that he would defend those companies.
Lets take this argument to the next level. I purchase online storage from ZYX.com for my files. In those files there maybe some material that infringes on some ones legal rights, whether in the US where I am, or in another country where there are different laws. Now to further complicate this lets say that ZYX is in Saudi Arabia.
So now ZYX operating under Saudi law may go in and remove files that are illegal in Saudi Arabia.
Okay so this is not EXACTLY what happened. But in either case NO DUE PROCESS was completed.
Lets explore this a bit further - Who owns the kindle device? If I own it then removal of any thing digital or otherwise is not legal with out due process.
And that is MY Opinion. Remember Peter is not a legal authority and has blogged his OPINION. It is his right, It is also each and every ones right in the US at this time to voice their opinion.
You know those little thingies that pop up before you download or sign up for anything online that seem like more words than anyone can ever read. Well those are called contracts and by clicking I Agree, you AGREE to letting Amazon delete books when it needs to (while also refunding your money). Therefore DUE PROCESS is not needed because they already have your PERMISSION. Jeez.
On a side note why is everyone defending paying a pirate? I kinda understand using pirated goods for FREE but when my money goes towards someone who has done nothing to deserve it I would think lashings would be involved.
Think about this for a minute... If this is allowed, Microsoft would be allowed to erase or reformat your hard-drive or even just the Windows components if they find your copy of Windows as illegal. They never did that. The genuine advantage just gives you that annoying message and it just did not allow you to update your software.
If they want to do this, they should not sell Kindle and just rent it out... and it should be stated in big bold letters that they can and will do this.
[CNET editor's note: Reference to another post's personal attack deleted.]
Possibly the reason anyone has defended the original publishers is because they didn't pirate the books in question.
Those books are public domain in many countries and, since they are both now considered classics in the US as well, they should be public domain here.
When a book is public domain, the only thing any publisher can claim is the rights to a certain print of that book. Prices go down because any publisher can pick up the text and print it out cheaper. That doesn't mean anyone is pirating it, the copyright just ran out.
Yet another anti-copyright activist using this Kindle situation as a smokescreen for a much broader agenda.
Um...
Yes, they do. They do have that authorization.
Who did they get the authorization from? From you. When did they get it? The moment you accepted the end-user license agreement, which specifically gives it to them.
What? You didn't know you gave them authorization? Next time read the license before you agree to it. But make no mistake about it: You consented. You gave them authorization. Don't like it? Don't buy a Kindle.
End User License Agreements (EULAS) are adhesion contracts and the buyer have NO reasonable way of reaching an agreement with the seller to add, remove or modify any of its stipulations. Furthermore, the manner in which such contracts are made and the style in which they are written make it impossible for many people to even know what they are deemed to have agreed to.
Many courts have overturn EULA when the users take the company who wrote the EULA to court.
Stop treating EULA as gospel.
Every reply you post just shows how idiotic you truly are. You are in a 10 foot hole, time to stop digging.
Amazon was at fault, Amazon was at fault, Amazon was at fault.
So I went to the dealership to buy a car, I picked the blue Lexus, cause I like me a good blue Lexus.
The "LEXUS DEALERSHIP" was very pleasant, simple and the purchase was without issue. I drove my shiny new blue Lexus home that day...it was soooo awesome. Then it happened, I went out to get in my shiny new blue Lexus and it was gone from the driveway!!!! OH MY!!! There was a note on the mailbox. It read? "Dear Proud Lexus Owner, we regret to inform you that we took your blue Lexus back to the dealership because it was reported stolen by Nissan. Sorry, better luck next time"
Amazon should of promptly paid the fine and license or did whatever they had to do to make it legit for the owners to continue to hold their product until arrangements or notification was sent to the owner prior to anything being deleted.
[CNET editor's note: Personal attacks deleted.]
The big deal, to most of us, is the way it was done, and the implications of the way it was done.
"Stolen property doesn't become yours just because you paid someone for it. Especially not when you pay much less than the legal price. In this case, 10% of list. How's that fair for anyone?"
I wish you'd stop lecturing us all as if we'd denied the rights of copyright holders, or declared the theft of intellectual property not to be "real theft." Yes, there are people in the world who think they have the right to burn twenty copies of a CD, or Xerox a whole book. Some of them may even be here, but you certainly don't know if they are or not. I see no evidence that any of your readers deserves a lecture on copyright law. The book was stolen. WE GET IT.
Nobody here has asserted any RIGHT to keep the stolen books. The closest any of us has come is the suggestion that Amazon should eat the costs of replacing the books, as a mea culpa or not properly vetting its suppliers. Out of respect for its customers, it could easily do so, and suggesting that it do so is not the same as saying anybody has a right to a pirated book.
"Apple confirmed last August that it has the ability to remotely delete iPhone applications when necessary. There was a similar controversy at the time. Soon forgotten, apparently.'
First I'd heard of it, and I'm glad to know it. I'll never forget it now. Before you can forget something, it has to be brought to your attention. So if you're right, and only the Orwell connection brought this event to light, thank God for Orwell. Amazon's never done this to me, but I'm certainly interested to know that they're doing it to others, have done it before, and will do it again. I don't recall signing any lengthy boilerplate with Amazon of the kind I signed with Apple. Maybe I did. But a lot of us hesitated to go the Kindle route for this very reason -- we weren't sure that our libraries would really be our own property, that they wouldn't vanish into the ether if Amazon went belly up, that they wouldn't be hacked, that the platform wouldn't be superseded so we'd have to buy a new Kindle every few years to still access them. I'm sure a lot more people will wonder these things now.
And if the ability to snatch things out of our libraries wasn't in any agreement with Kindle purchasers (they certainly didn't broadcast it), then I'm still not sure Amazon had any business invading what we thought was merely the electronic equivalent of a set of books on our own shelf, all their spines showing, behind the locked doors of Every Man's Castle.
This situation worked out exactly right. All these complaints boil down to the immature philosophy of "finders keepers, losers weepers." Grow up.
It's not about a claim to the right to retain pirated e-books. As many many people have posted here, the issue is HOW amazon got and deleted the e-book.
I'm sure that many poster here also have sympathy for the Author and publisher. But that's not the point.
Even in the digital age, RESPECT should still mean something (we already know that it does not mean anything to you). It's not Amazon's Kindle they're entering, it's the user's Kindle -- they paid for it!
CNet should never have allowed your work to get published. With all your antics with the folks here (with one lingering comment "what a maroon") who are spending their personal time to participate in this discussion. You owe the readers and participants of this discussion an apology.
Please read your own article, including all quotes.
"This work is in the public domain in Canada, Australia, and other countries. It may still be copyrighted in some countries. The user should determine whether the work is in the public domain in their own country before using it."
Nothing in your article points towards those books being pirated. They were sold out of zone, that's not the same thing.
"Appreciate" is a word with more than one meaning, and we''ll all be our own judges of what's progress and what's the law of unintended consequences. To the only parties whose point of view you seem to value -- Amazon and the copyright holders -- all is right as rain. To those who have just found out how easily their libraries can be made to disappear, progress may have a down side, and "appreciation" is only in the sense of: "to be fully conscious of; be aware of; detect: to appreciate the dangers of a situation.
Do you even know what the original purpose of copyright law it? Somehow I doubt it. Hint: It isn't there to make corporations rich.
In 100 years from now, the effects of an empty public domain in the US is going to cost us far more then these corporations made from abusing it.
Amazon have no police powers, and they could have easily handled this in a way where its paying customers didn't get screwed over.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nemo_dat_quod_non_habet
Sir, you don't realize it, but you're having a very bad day. You are not acquitting yourself well in this argument. That was a childish riposte.
I could easily make a copy of a print book and sell it on Amazon to you. You wouldn't know anything about it until it arrived. Would you support Amazon sending a team to breaking into your house to retrieve it?
If the answer is no, then you are a hypocrite.
It occurs to me, however, that repossession agents routinely do for physical assets just what Amazon did for these virtual items, and repossession is widely recognized as legal even in the absence of court proceedings.
On further reflection, I think I should have used repossession agents in my analogy instead of the police, but at the time my purpose was to show that the final result was appropriate, not so much to show how each step in the process was appropriate.
And to Peter I think repossession probably would have worked a lot better. It makes you think about it more :P It's just so easy to use cars (and common everyday things, like police) in analogies that we sometimes forget about more effective ideas that are more relevant to the issue.
And I once saw a show entirely about repossession. I only saw parts, but it was mostly about the drama and suspense of taking a car or plane and driving/flying away with it WITHOUT THE "OWNER" EVER KNOWING. It was sort of interesting. To make it more dramatic they focused the show on all the struggles, like the plane engine not starting, etc. And all the while they're worried that the person may show up at any moment, etc. I don't know what organization was actually repossessing the things however.
The e-book was removed because it's illegal. Who enforces the law?
Have you seen any pirate bust without the presence of the police? Microsoft of the BSA can't go into stores and grab all the illegal CDs in their shops - can they?
Repossession is a huge metaphorical jump, and only applicable in a default of credit issued. If someone came into my home to "repossess" something I had already paid off they would be shot and killed. Simple as that.
You still haven't entertained the merits of a user's expectation that the goods he buys from a well known and reputable dealer will be legal in the domain of that user. Amazon made a mistake by selling a book that was still under US copyright law on behalf of someone other than the copyright holder. It made a second mistake by removing that content from the PRIVATE property of another individual. If I sold you a movie that I had no right to sell, would you simply allow me to enter your home without your knowledge to retrieve it when the copyright holder called me on my illegal behavior? I hope and assume not, however judging by your wholesale acceptance of Amazon's policy you might. That in itself is scary, and brings to mind many unsavory characterizations.
No good can be achieved by further arguing this point, you either believe that it is okay to remove private property without permission or you don't.
Of course you don't you retard. You think corporations can do anything they want if it is buried in legalize that the end-user can't really understand or agree to, or negotiate. In other words you are a corporatist, someone who thinks that the rights of the individual are not only superseded by corporate "rights" but corporations are allowed to make law.
- by blarneyspet July 17, 2009 10:30 PM PDT
- It's obvious from your "stolen car in the driveway" analogy that 1) you know nothing about property law, and 2) you didn't bother to do any research on the subject before writing this post.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- by Peter N. Glaskowsky July 17, 2009 10:44 PM PDT
- Yeah, well, again: consider Repo Man. My fault for using the wrong analogy and not anticipating the BHC problem.
- Like this
-
- by rkinne01 July 18, 2009 1:30 AM PDT
- The police, by the way, can't simply march onto your property and remove items that may or may not be stolen unless they have warrant.
- Like this
-
- by Peter N. Glaskowsky July 18, 2009 10:20 AM PDT
- rkinne01-- sure they can, if they're in plain view. When the police find a stolen car in your driveway, they don't need a court order to tow it away. Neither does a repo man. In this case, Amazon simply annulled a sale which was never legal in the first place and returned the money. Nobody was harmed.
- Like this
-
- by gggg sssss July 18, 2009 12:10 PM PDT
- @ Peter teh repo man is an even worse analogy, since teh rep man was never part of teh transaction, never the original owner, never the seller. And the Repo man cannot enter your locked garage. What is in a Kindle is not in plain sight.
- Like this
-
- by eadeguzman July 18, 2009 11:47 PM PDT
- Peter - "plain view" only applies if there is "probable cause". In your analogy, can Amazon legally determine probable cause?
- Like this
-
- by Peter N. Glaskowsky July 19, 2009 1:27 AM PDT
- There was no privacy violation. Amazon knew the books were present on customer Kindles because the customers told Amazon to put the books there. C'mon, give at least some small amount of thought to what you're writing.
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 6 pages (374 Comments)And even if you were right that the issue was so cut-and-dried that the police would "just take it away", your analogy still fails miserably, since Amazon.com is quite obviously NOT THE POLICE.
In this case, it's in "plain view" but it's inside a house. They have the technology to do it, but do they have ABSOLUTE legal authority to do it? They are in shaky ground here.
Violating a person's privacy can be argued as "harm".