Amazon says it won't repeat Kindle book recall
Amazon said late Friday that it recalled two Kindle e-books because the publisher lacked the rights to the book. However, in the future, it says it won't pull already downloaded material from customers' devices.
The removal of two George Orwell books from the accounts of those who had already purchased them sparked an outcry from customers, bloggers, and mainstream media outlets.
"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," Amazon spokesman Drew Herdener said in an e-mail. "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."
Herdener said Amazon won't handle things the same way in the future. "We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances."
Some said that Amazon's move appeared to violate its own terms of service.
During her years at CNET News, Ina Fried has changed beats several times, changed genders once, and covered both of the Pirates of Silicon Valley. These days, most of her attention is focused on Microsoft. E-mail Ina. 
...and if no one noticed, would they have held to the same promise?
'Oops! I'm really sorry that I broke into your house and took those games out of your xbox. I did leave money on the table on the way out, though.... and I promise I won't ever ever do it again.'
DRM is the exact mechanism they used to jank the purchases (look up 'rights revocation'). Without it, they couldn't/wouldn't have pulled a stunt like that.
No DRM, no lost data. DRM, lost data.
This is about Amazon choosing to protect its own interest at the expense of its users. Obviously, their legal department ran the numbers and determined that the cost of liability from being sued by the books' rights holder was bigger than the cost of being sued by Kindle users. So they decided to violate their own Kindle terms of service to avoid getting sued for greater damages by the publisher.
Hopefully, some Kindle owners will sue Amazon.
Obviously they didnt calculate the liability cost of the customers' lawsuit.... Typical short-sighted legal departments...
I do however see a lot of people being soured on considering a Kindle purchase, and a whole lot of reviews mentioning the incident in the future.
Buh-bye Kindle.
In all fairness 1984 should have been in the public domain a looong time ago. It's greedy corporations and relatives leaching off the legacy of one of the greatest English authors of our time that caused this. Paper distribution has already brought in a ton of money, digital distribution costs almost nothing and the author has been dead for 70 years. Who's getting screwed in this deal?
The writers AND publishers have made a mint off of me. I more than support the authors I read.
I have purchased multiple copies of many of my favorite author's works so don't even try and go there bub. :)
But I will say this...1984 was written a LOOONG time ago. Do you actually think that the original author's family sees anymore than a penny or two MAX for any book sold?
If you do I have a contract for the Brooklyn bridge for you to buy. ;)
I'm pretty sure that George Orwell's grave doesn't have a vending-box bolted to the headstone.
You can't simply remove someone else's properties without their permission or the intervention of the courts. It's called theft.
If you buy stolen property, it's not actually your property: it's still stolen.
What property was stolen from users? They did not own the book, they owned the rights to have a copy on their Kindle granted by Amazon via purchase.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/computer
Sounds like a computer to me. Maybe it does not fit in your standard definition or Personal Computer, but it is by definition still a computer.
That being said I feel Amazon did the right thing for the most part, and even if you don't it is not right to completely judge a company based off of a single action. The ebook sale and distribution market is still relatively young, and copyright law is constantly under criticism for being too confusing and/or broken which leaves a lot of room for error. Just look at what is happening in the multimedia markets, specifically dealing with the RIAA and major companies such as Microsoft being sued for copyright violations.
A companies first obligation is to protect its investors and share holders from liabilities such as this.
Amazon Kindle has a KILL SWITCH, which is typical for all devices that uses celluar signals, and wi-fi devices.
iPhone even has one as well, Apple also has a policy of removing apps from your phone without notice, followed by full refund of the app.
It's typical folks, in today's age. KILL SWITCH IS IN ALL INTERNET ENABLED DEVICE.
Amazon did the right thing, by yanking the book from the Kindle Store. At least the customers got refund, which is good.
Also, Amazon Kindle books are STORED IN THE CLOUD! I have a Kindle, and also an Kindle app for iPhone, WHICH STORES BOOK IN THE CLOUD!
We may be witnessing the death of Amazon's Kindle.
These DRM systems are corporations gone wild.
NEVER pay, just get a library card.
There are some simple ways around this, one already mentioned and the other is to just not use the wireless but rather download to a PC and transfer by USB (which is the way every other reader works). They cannot delete what they cannot access.
Library!? Just try getting an unusual book or a popular one. Ever try getting a book you want in a small town library?
Witnessing the death of the Kindle? I would love to remind you of THAT statement in a couple of years!
The only thing dying is booksellers that DO NOT have readers.
Its about all the readers and potential book market that Kindle is trying to tap into. Readers (like me) are very opinionated when it comes to their passion."
AMEN, Amazon could care less about the sort of non-owner posters that are bashing here. These folks do not own one and will never own one anyway. Pissing off non-customers is a non-issue for any retailer. I know four Kindle owners and have one myself and they ALL love them.
"Amazon could care less about the sort of non-owner posters that are bashing here."
Bad Press = Lost Sales ...among the very market most likely to buy such a product.
"Just try getting an unusual book or a popular one"
I can whip up a list of ten rare/used book dealers within 10 miles of my house that can do just that for you.
Consider this:
They could have chosen to not remove it, but instead relied on the end-users to delete the content. Since they obviously have the ability to determine what you have on your Kindle, end-users that had chosen not to delete the content (or hadn't gotten around to it) could have been open to illegal possession lawsuits from the rightful copyright owner. Amazon would have been subpoenaed to provide a list of customers with the book still on their device, and you would have been even MORE outraged that they helped their customers get sued.
I'm not a Kindle owner, and I have no immediate plans to be one, but this event wouldn't prevent me from becoming one.
- by eCurmudgeon July 18, 2009 10:01 AM PDT
- I can tell from reading the comments here that none, NOT ONE, of the commenters own a Kindle.
- Reply to this comment
-
-
- by mihal1 July 18, 2009 10:20 AM PDT
- Dude, you stole my thunder! I agree, all Kindle users need to turn off the wireless permanently! Use the USB cable only for adding content. I don't think Amazon has the ability to screw around with your Kindle if the wireless is off.
-
-
- by El_Segfaulto July 18, 2009 10:28 AM PDT
- You are right, I do not own a Kindle and have no desire to purchase one, even before this. I have an e-book reader on my smartphone and that's good enough for me. But I digress. It's not the price that's the issue for most people, it's the audacity that Amazon didn't give any warning and simply used a "feature" that was hitherto unknown to the device owners.
-
-
- by gggg sssss July 18, 2009 11:49 AM PDT
- What a lame argument. First, where did it say that if you used your wireless then your content was at risk? Second, why shoudl one have to turn off a selling feature at all? You paid for it didnt you?
-
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (67 Comments)First off, you can protect your precious downloads by simply turning the wireless off (easy to do). You should do this anyway to extend battery life. Second, you can store your downloads on your computer via the USB connection (I can hear the morons out there crying about the inconvenience of it all. Since you have to plug the Kindle into a USB port to recharge it, why not transfer the content at the same time? It'll take less time to make those copies than it will to charge the device. Oh, you can't because the Kindle requires a micro-USB cable? Don't make me laugh. It comes with one, or you can easily buy one from Fry's, or Best Buy, or eBay).
Third, it was a 99-cent book, for Pete's sake! If that upsets you, you are a bloody cheapskate who shouldn't be allowed online at all, because sooner or later you'll stop paying your ISP. Besides, you can read it online at no cost other than what your ISP charges you morons. Class-action lawsuit over a 99-cent item? I can ear the lawyers laughing already. In any case, you got your money back.
If you must vent your spleen, do it over something more important -- like why you were allowed online in the first place.
Consider the iPod. Should we not use wireless on the iPod for fear Apple will hack into it. No wait, Apple already does that by stealth to kill apps it no longer likes, and to kill entirely jailbroken devices with stealth OS upgrades.