Comments on: Making sense of the '1984' Kindle kerfuffle

Amazon remotely deleted pirated copies of "1984" and "Animal Farm" it unintentionally sold to Kindle owners, and suddenly everyone from CNET to The New York Times is in an uproar.

[ducdebrabant]

"Sure. And when Amazon starts deleting documents installed by users on their own Kindles, I'll be complaining too. But that isn't what happened here."

Others of us have a lower threshold of concern. What happened here is that a lot of us thought when we bought a book from Amazon, that was that. We might in the back of our minds have worried otherwise, but we dismissed it. Now I have to wonder whether Amazon won't, in fact, remove books we've put on our own Kindles. I purchased my own copy of the play "Outward Bound," and as it isn't very long, I have toyed with the idea of scanning and proofing it and having it converted. If it's still under copyright, I suppose they might simply delete it, but I'm not sure at all that I'm not permitted to make a personal copy of a book I lawfully own. How does Amazon know whether I have a printed copy or not?

You say Amazon has a right to take a book out of our libraries because "Amazon put it there." Well, as it happens, Amazon put quite a lot of the printed books now in my home IN my home. It's fine if you don't agree that an electronic personal library is akin to private space, and (as a substitute for a home library) is something like a sanctum, something to many of us like, well, a room full of books. But I don't understand your lack of empathy with the opposing position.

Why is it so incomprehensible to you that many of us have concerns -- not just about what Amazon did -- but about what it proves they have the technology to do and what nobody can guarantee they will NOT do? One day, will we all find we've changed from the owners of a library that would have been the envy of the Ptolemys to people with a worn out piece of plastic and only the printed books we bought before this marvel of technology got us so fooled?

Scientific progress is not moral progress, and things admirable in themselves may turn out to have been, as Swift predicted of outlawing Christianity "attended with inconveniences." The nifty notion of shutting down all the passenger rail and substituting millions of internal combustion engines zipping around an interstate highway system looked a lot better in the days before gas hit three bucks a gallon.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

My lack of sympathy stems from the lack of respect for property rights, and the lack of understanding that all tools are weapons.

[ducdebrabant]

"But I see you have no response to the merits of my position."

Sure I do. Your position is that the books are stolen. Nobody I've noticed has disagreed with that (certainly not I) and your position is that yes we have, and especially me. Your further position is that Amazon has the right to remove them from anybody's Kindle library without any niceties because (a.) it put them there, and (b.) it can. You think the fact that a corporation can enforce the law more efficiently and swiftly than the constabulary is a sure sign of social progress, and it gives you no qualms of any kind when they just go ahead and do it and answer questions afterwards. You have no position whatsoever on anybody's broader concerns, and the broader concerns are what many of us want to discuss.

[gggg sssss]

Amoazon did not put them there, the purchaser did. Now, in the cloud it is hard to know what is here and what is there and what is just virtually here, but Amazon did not put the book files into the Kindle.

[crsteele]

The question of whether the book was pirated or not has NOTHING to do with the argument. Absolutely nothing whatsoever.

If the book was paid for it wasn't "pirated" as you ignorant thought police love to shout.
If the book is in public domain in other countries and amazon sold it then they deserve all the bad press they got and more.

If I bought a hard copy book and it wasn't legit would have amazon come to my house and seize the copy.... I think not.... what's the difference? NONE!!!
They screwed up and then they abused the technology to steal the book back from legit purchasers.

So now do we have to put up with yet another corporation screwing their customers, I don't see much difference between this and Sony putting the root kit DRM virus on their audio cds to screw thier customers. (I have never purchased another sony product since and never will). Un ethical companies like these deserve to go out of business.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Oh, of course it was pirated-- by the people who tried to sell it on the Kindle store.

[gggg sssss]

Peter, if it was pirated, was the copy that was sold in fact an illegal copy f the otherwise not pirated file? or was the 99cent version in fact another version? Do you know that for a fact? In any case, who is Amazon to enforce whatever right US based copyright holders may have? Only in your world it seems from these comments.

[toadfacedfrump]

Yes Mr. Glaskowsky, TINSTAAFL - I totally agree. But you seem intent on missing the point. The posts I've read are very reasoned and well thought out; and unless I missed the post(s) where someone wants pirated books, most are fine with a refund or a legitimate copy of the book they thought they had legally purchased (and really had).

The problem is how glibly you can defend Amazon for such an egregious act. This is serious stuff. What if you have a Kindle? What if you wake up one morning and every thing you had legally bought and downloaded for/to it had been deleted, for whatever reason? Maybe it was a glitch in the system, human error, Amazon discovered their entire e-book collection was indeed circumventing copyright laws, etc. Either way, your files on your personal property were deleted by the company who sold you the device and content. You're OK with that scenario? Really? I'll stick to real ink and paper for now, and besides, Mr. Fox's latest book is an excellent foray into much the same area as this. Yes, that's how seriously I view this, I equate it with stem cell research. And you're helping to open the eyes of some people on this subject just as Mr. Fox did with his book.

Surely you are just doing this for more hits/visits? Please, say it IS so!!

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

But Amazon gave them a refund, and that's all they're entitled to.

And Amazon didn't do those other things you mention, so why mention them?

[eadeguzman]

Peter -- Kindle users are entitled to human "respect", not just the refund.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Oh, "respect." Which you get to define in any terms convenient to your argument. Sure, let's go with that.

[eadeguzman]

How do you define or re-define respect in terms convenient to a specific argument? Respect is what it is. It's common sense. It's part of common decency. How many meaning do you think respect has?

But I get it. It's hard to understand respect if you are not capable of giving one.

[ducdebrabant]

"My lack of sympathy stems from the lack of respect for property rights, and the lack of understanding that all tools are weapons."

Indeed they are.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

So why act all surprised and indignant when someone reminds you of this basic fact of nature? Harden up.

[El_Segfaulto]

@ Peter

I believe when the parent agreed that all tools are weapons he/she was not thinking of wrenches and screwdrivers if you catch my drift.

[ducdebrabant]

"So why act all surprised and indignant when someone reminds you of this basic fact of nature? Harden up."

Engrave that advice on your memory. You have been acting here as if in ignorance of it.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Funnily enough, sometimes I do feel like I'm talking to myself here.

Also, could I persuade you to use the "Reply to this comment" function instead of the "Add a comment" function?

[dkjack]

Bull. Doesn't Amazon do due diligence before listing books? If they can't sell a book in the US, then it shouldn't be listed on the US site. A weasel-worded disclaimer doesn't cut it.

This is the digital equivalent of Amazon rifling my bookshelf without my permission. They may have the legal right, but it still stinks. It's arrogant, insensitive and shabby.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Amazon doesn't do ANY diligence, due or not. You can post anything you want, and it goes up on the store immediately. Pirates have noticed this fact and begun trying to use the Kindle store to distribute pirated books. Amazon needs to stop this nonsense. And you're taking the pirates' side, calling Amazon "arrogant." Shame on you.

[eadeguzman]

Peter,

It's Amazon's fault that it doesn't do "ANY" diligence.

Amazon is arrogant because it thinks that it can do whatever it wants. They found out the hard way that they can not do that and reversed their position. Why can't you see that?

Nobody here is taking the pirate's side. It's all about respect.

Amazon should have just refunded the money and told the user that they are now in possession of stolen property and advice the user to delete it him/herself.

They should trust that Kindle user are decent enough to do just that. If not, it's not Amazon's problem. The publisher can ask for a warrant to search and prosecute all Kindle users who "purchased" the illegal copy and kept it despite Amazon's warning and refund.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Now why would that be a superior solution, when it's so easy to remotely delete exactly and only the pirated material so that the whole transaction, in effect, never happened?

Why put customers on the spot like that, threatening prosecution for something that can be resolved so easily?

What would that say about Amazon's commitment to the rights of its legitimate publishers and authors, if it allows pirates to sell books they don't own and allows the customers to keep the pirated works?

And how could Amazon provide a refund without reversing the transaction in the first place?

Amazon found a perfect technical solution to a previously unsolved problem, and it deserves congratulations, not criticism.

[eadeguzman]

Yes, "perfect" (==easy) technical solution. Ethical solution? No.

Why would it be a superior solution? Because it's the right thing to do.

Pulling the rug out from under somebody's feet is always a bad solution.

Telling the customer that they are in possession of stolen property is not the same as "threatening prosecution" because Amazon can't prosecute.

Amazon's commitment? Well, they should find other ways to do it. They can go after the poster. The easy route is usually the lousy route for consumers. The main thing is that Amazon should stay within its boundaries as retailer and not act as if they have the power to do anything. They are not the police. They are not god.

What do you mean "never happened"?

They can't magically reverse the transaction because the transaction was already committed. It did happen. The user could be in the middle of reading the book when they did that. You can argue "never happened" if the customer never received a "purchase complete" or "thank you" message.

Retailers can give refunds in a number of ways. They don't necessarily need to be bound by any technical transaction.

[ducdebrabant]

"Funnily enough, sometimes I do feel like I'm talking to myself here.

Also, could I persuade you to use the "Reply to this comment" function instead of the "Add a comment" function?"

Are you unaware that there is no "Reply to this comment" button after any of your OWN comments? I'd gladly use one. The reason it feels like you're talking to yourself here is that you are.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

No, no, just use the one on the original comment: it's the first "Reply to this comment" above whatever reply you want to reply to. It works, really.

[ducdebrabant]

The arrogance of the pirates doesn't preclude Amazon being arrogant as well. This is starting to sound like those post 9/11 arguments about how opposing illegal wiretaps makes you pro-terrorist. But if "Amazon needs to stop this nonsense" means that Amazon needs to do some due diligence, I agree. Just saying "Amazon doesn't do ANY diligence" is hardly a defense -- especially against a charge of arrogance.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Except Amazon has a way to undo the damage from an inappropriate third-party sale. That's what we're discussing! So they're using technology to:

A) Make it quicker and easier for more people to get published at no cost, and
B) Solve this particular aspect of the piracy problem at no cost.

Amazon deserves our admiration, not all this criticism, and certainly not the irresponsible rabble-rousing we got from certain other bloggers.

[gggg sssss]

@ Peter then you DO approve of OJ's tactics.

[eadeguzman]

Peter, Amazon, yes, has a way to undo the damage. But do they have the right to exercise that "power"?

Amazon should be admired for refunding the money. But for deleting the software on their personal device unilaterally? I don't think so. All they had to do after the refund was to warn the user that they are now in possession of stolen property and let the user do the right thing.

It's just insulting and disrespectful act. Why should they be admired for that?

[Blackfoot4]

Two points that have not appeared (at least so far) in the discussion here:
First from the TOS

1. 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. -
nowhere in the most recent TOS does it say that Amazon has the right to deauthorize content for any reason

2. The potential use of the Kindle on a trip - does this mean that Amazon will extract otherwise legal files when we cross a border? Does this make sense - What if I am receiving a Wi-Fi signal from Canada? Does that mean Canadian rules apply ? Does Amazon plan to track the Kindles throughout the world?

[ProfJorEl]

Suppose I had bought a public domain editionof 1984 on the Canadian Amazon website. Would Amazon be permitted to take my copy of the book from my shelf when I bring it back to the US? Of course not! Can I buy multiple editions of 1984 from Amazon that are not copyrighted from their affiliated foreiegn websites? Yes I can. How is this different?

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Because the sale took place in the US. Clear now?

[ProfJorEl]

Actually, I can buy from any of Amazon's foreign sites from the US, including books that are unavailalbe here, including books that are public domain there, but copyrighted here. Once they are delivered to me Amazon can't take them back. I can even find bookseller here who will sell me foreign editions fo books. No one can take those back either.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

So what're you suggesting here? That because it's impractical to enforce a law in one way, it's immoral to enforce it in a different way? Interesting theory, "professor."

[gggg sssss]

You have just pointed out a huge weakness in using US based cloud systems in otehr parst of teh worl. Fear the cloud

[eadeguzman]

-- Interesting theory, "professor"

Peter. It amazes me the lack of respect you show to the people responding to your blog. You are paid to do this, we are not.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Tells you something about the relative value of our opinions, doesn't it?

[eadeguzman]

Peter, what it tells me is that there are hacks out there that are paid to write.

You did not even address the comment about "lack of respect" you show the folks reading and responding to your blog. You must be very proud of it.

[toadfacedfrump]

OK Mr. Glaskowsky, I realize you are either truly dedicated to this point of view or looking for more hits/visits. Either way, I'm done. However, please don't let this cyber-discussion raise your blood pressure; and the same goes for the other excellent posters here as well. I read your viewpoint and disagreed; you disagreed with mine, so we'll just have to agree to disagree. But you did come up with a great catalyst for an excellent, intelligent discussion though, I must say! Well done!!!

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Thanks. :-)

[blarneyspet]

"I don't think Amazon exceeded its authority here, but that's really just coming from my own understanding of the law; I can't point to any case law."

<<<Well maybe you should have done your research before blasting other people for not doing theirs.>>>

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.

<<<Are you serious? I find it hard to believe that you are, but just in case: the "Repo Man" analogy also fails because 1) The party repossessing mortgaged or leased property maintains ownership of the property and 2) The party subject to the repossession has granted that right to the other party by way of a contract. These are things that anyone who has ever mortgaged or leased property should know. And it's clear from even a cursory examination of the Amazon situation that neither 1 or 2 apply.>>>

"...my purpose was to show that the final result was appropriate, not so much to show how each step in the process was appropriate."

<<<Except that any meaningful examination of the merit of a given outcome must include an examination of the means by which it was achieved. Again, this should be obvious. The points I'm making here are pretty much "Thinking 101" type stuff. I find it quite annoying that someone with such poor research and reasoning skills is afforded this forum.>>>

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

And it bugs me to see your comments on my fine article, too.

[tomposter]

Peter, you really are avoiding the issue. Let's try this analogy. A policeman knows evidence of the crime is in your house and obtains it without a search warrant. The policeman is careful not to enter the houses of anyone who is not guilty. You complain, but I say "get over it", you were guilty, and I'll complain after someone innocent is affected.

If there is no power, there need be no concern about it's being misused. This incident has made us aware that the power is there. The fact that it can be argued that it was not misused in this instance does not mean it is unreasonable to have concerns about how the power might be used in the future.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

That analogy has nothing to do with this case, because in this case, Amazon did the right thing.

As for the larger issue, the benefits of remote management on a device of this type vastly outweigh the risks. It's a great use of technology.

[tomposter]

You should have made your last point much earlier. You say that the benefits outweigh the risks. That is a judgment, not a fact. People may reasonably differ about judgments, but you seem to see those who disagree with you as unreasonable.

To return to my original example, the Supreme Court instituted a policy that "right" evidence wrongfully obtained (without a search warrant) may not be used at trial, because their judgment was that the risks of encouraging bad behavior outweighed the benefit of the right result in a particular case.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Well, I was avoiding the larger issue, wasn't I?

In this specific case, Amazon did the right thing. Everyone ended up in exactly the position they would have been in if not for the original act of piracy. That isn't a judgment call, it's a fact.

[eadeguzman]

Peter, it's not a "great" use of technology -- it's abuse of technology.

If Amazon did the right thing the should not have pledged not to do that again.

If Amazon, is dealing with computers, sure they can do that. But they are dealing with people and people are entitled to respect.

[tnewt]

You guys are missing the point.

Amazon presented an illusion with Kindle--the illusion that you were actually buying books (not leasing them), and that the Kindle and its contents were in your possession, kind of like carrying around your own personal library. Also, Kindles were cool (if you don't think this is important, then you probably don't think that the fashion industry makes any money). This illusion helped people move from paper to e-books and was probably responsible for a lot of their sales.

What Amazon has done is to completely shatter this illusion. People won't think of the Kindle the same way again. It's probably no longer cool to be seen with one.

They've really cut their own throat. And given the outrage their response was really too tepid. They really should have gone over the top: "We're changing the software and the Kindle so this is not even POSSIBLE in the future. And we will send out a written guarantee to all customers that we will never do this again."

Compare this response to what they said. "We're not going to do it next time." Yeah, well now I know you CAN do it, and I'm not sure I want to own a device that gives you that power.

Dumb, and also really hilarious that they they chose these two books to delete.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Amazon has apparently done this same thing many times before. I think they ought to continue.

The iPhone survived an identical controversy almost a year ago, and the Kindle will survive this one.

[BeccaLT]

Completely agree with your summary, tnewt. I think this will have an impact on Kindle sales. And unlike the mobile phones and smart phones that Peter desperately keeps insisting is analogous, e-readers are not ubiquitous because of the same concerns (ownership of content, privacy, etc) that his incident has shone a bright light on.

I bought my Kindle in April and have "sold" at least four more that I know of for Amazon by my championing of it. I won't be making any more such recommendations in the future and all that ask me about my device will hear the tale of Orwell.

[ducdebrabant]

You speak of the Iphone removing applications, not books or music. I'm a little less sensitive to the loss of a tool -- a software -- than to potential loss of books or music. These to me are spiritual products that speak to me, and my ownership of them is more than the possession of a hammer or a software program. Regardless of the fact that in this particular case the purchasers may not have owned the books in law, that they may have been compensated appropriately, etc., there's both an existential problem and a broader anxiety at work. What this reveals is a capacity -- based on the technology -- for all sorts of mischief and thought control.

When I first bought a paperback of Barbara Tuchman's "The Proud Tower" (which I no longer own), I believe I recall a sentence in the chapter "Neroism Is in the Air" about "******** orgies in the elite Garde Corps du Regiment." The last time I looked at a newer edition, the word "felatio" wasn't there.

I can't go back to the original book, and I don't know if it's my mind playing tricks or if the publisher changed (with or without the author's approval) the text. But at least theoretically, there's a way of finding out. What if Amazon can now take a single word out of a book you already own? How will you ever know you're not crazy?

What if they can remotely take Cesar Chavez's profile our of all previous editions of Texas school textbooks (as Texas is now demanding of the publisher do in the newer edition) by digitally altering a file? Your answer is that Amazon hasn't done these things, so why worry about it? How do you know Amazon has not done these things? If they had, you wouldn't even have Version A in your library to run a comparison.

And isn't the time to worry about things BEFORE they happen, but after you become alert to the possibility? Some of us are worried now about that ounce of prevention. You seem worried ONLY about Amazon's pound of cure.

[gggg sssss]

@ ducdebrabant isnt there a book about just that happening? or a movie?

[eadeguzman]

Amazon says they won't do this again, Peter:

"Amazon says it won't repeat Kindle book recall":
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13860_3-10290047-56.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0

"We are changing our systems so that in the future we will not remove books from customers' devices in these circumstances."

Please read other CNet articles next time.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Apparently you didn't even read MY article.

[cerebral_but_dull]

A 'repo man' cannot simply decide to steal back your car -- there is a legal process. The problem is that the technology in a Kindle allows Amazon, without a court order or legal process, to "steal back" something you have bought. We should not buy Kindles (or iPhones) until the problem is solved by all secret "back doors" being removed. Meanwhile Amazon should be sued for illegal repossession activity. Should Amazon be allowed to activate a microphone in the Kindle and listen in at my house to determine if I've put stuff on it that they don't think belongs? Being technologically able to do something does NOT imbue you with the legal right to do it.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Repossessors don't need "a legal process," they just need to act legally. I think Amazon did. It didn't take anything that was legally owned. It didn't browse the contents of anyone's Kindle, never mind the rest of that nonsense. The result was exactly right.

Why are you so surprised and annoyed that technology can be used to protect the rights of copyright holders?

Believe me, a lot of THEM were surprised and annoyed to discover technology could be used to steal their work. I didn't have any sympathy for the surprise, but they were fully entitled to be annoyed.

[rkinne01]

You're kidding me right? DRM didn't work for the music industry and won't work here either, people revolted against it which meant that Apple, Amazon, and other content providers had to remove DRM or people were going to buy from someone who did remove it.

Amazon did have to legally act and no one here is suggesting otherwise, but they also have a MORAL responsibility to remedy the situation to loyal customers. Why couldn't they pull the books in question then work out some sort of deal with the real copyright holders to allow customer to keep the books legally? They certainly have the money and the clout to make it happen. Corporations these days lack any sort of accountability, its always someone Else's fault, it would have been nice for Amazon to have admited their mistake and taken care of it in a more friendly manner.

It's always the consumer who gets screwed by DRM schemes while the pirates simply bypass them. I had considered buying a Kindle before reading this article but now you couldn't give me one for free.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Jeez, who got screwed? Nobody was out a penny, except potentially Amazon if it paid the pirates before detecting the piracy. But I doubt even that happened.

Amazon's customers started out the situation with 99 cents in their pockets and no Kindle copy of 1984. That's exactly how they ended up, too.

[rkinne01]

Who got screwed? Gee I don't know....maybe the people who's books were deleted off their Kindle without their permission.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

They didn't own those books. They didn't even have a license to them. It wasn't in Amazon's power to give them a license.

[rkinne01]

I think we can all agree that these copies where stolen but Amazon shouldn't have just gone and removed the copies without notice. Why not send out a notice giving subscribers 24 hours to decide if they'd like a refund or a legal copy at Amazon's expense? Amazon had a chance here to come out smelling like a rose by chose to smell like manure.

The fault here lies completely on Amazon. Why are they not checking the copyrights before allowing the books to sold? We're not talking some unknown author here, Orwell is one of the most celebrated authors of his time, how does Amazon not check the copyright?

The consumer is the innocent here, there is an assumption that Amazon is a honest company that sells reputable goods. It's not as if any of these people actively looked to purchase pirated versions of these books, they thought they were making a purchase in good faith.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

So you think pirates, by uploading illegal copies of other people's copyrighted books priced far below their fair market value, can properly oblige Amazon to lose ten bucks or more for every customer who gets caught in the scam? Good grief.

The customers got their 99 cents back! Amazon doesn't owe them a book, too.

[gggg sssss]

Peter - who is agreeing the file is an illegal copy? Is it in fact a copy of the legal Penguin (???) file? Or is it a file created by somebody that happens to be about a work that has US copyright ( assuming that is in fact true). What exactly is illegal about the file? And who in this thread has agreed with you except by way of reference to stolen cars?

[rkinne01]

Did you even read what I've written?

It's Amazon's responsibility to make sure that they're selling goods that are legal, which they apparently didn't do in this case. If the books were sold below market value why didn't Amazon pick up on that and stop the sales from being processed in the first place? Shouldn't the fact that a book selling for ten bucks is selling for a dollar somewhere else have raised a flag?

Wouldn' itt have been better for Amazon to have handled this better? Send a letter alerting customers as to what happened and give options BEFORE altering/removing the books.

The pirates were wrong in what they did but so was Amazon for allowing stolen goods on their site in the first place. Amazon should have eaten crow and replaced the book at their own expense.

[arshield]

The fault is all about PR and David Pouge. Amazon did what is right for their bottom line. They have to maintain the relationship with their publishers. The reason the Kindle is so popular is that they have worked well with publishers to get lots of books on the kindle.

What went wrong is that when questioned Amazon didn't have a ready answer. They have done this many, many times before. In fact it has been written up as a feature when an author pushed out a factual correction to his book. David Pouge wrote it up without the full story (and at least half of the problem is Amazon's PR department not responding.)

I think Peter is basically right that Amazon did what it needed to do to keep its bottom line up. But it didn't do what it should have done to keep its customers happy. It is a balancing act and Amazon will suffer some consequences because of it. I will not change my habits much. I primarily read non-DRM books, free books from Amazon and public domain books on it. I have purchased books but I am wary every time because of DRM. I am glad this happened to again wake people up to DRM issues. But this is an example why publishers are not going to let Amazon go DRM free any time soon.

[littlejohn23]

Does anyone find any of this slightly ironic, given that we are talking about 1984?

[Klifff]

by Peter N. Glaskowsky July 18, 2009 2:22 AM PDT
Jeez, who got screwed? Nobody was out a penny......Amazon's customers started out the situation with 99 cents in their pockets and no Kindle copy of 1984. That's exactly how they ended up, too.

From NYT:
"Justin Gawronski, a 17-year-old from the Detroit area, was reading ?1984? on his Kindle for a summer assignment and lost all his notes and annotations when the file vanished. ?They didn?t just take a book back, they stole my work,? he said."

So, Amazon owes nothing to this young man or others like him?

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

I simply don't believe Gawronski's notes and annotations are gone. It's my understanding that they're stored separately. Whether they're still accessible through the Kindle is another matter; I don't know. But if Gawronski has a legitimate beef here, it's against the pirates who sold him an illegal copy of the book, not against Amazon.

[rkinne01]

Amazon removed the content so damage to or loss of unrelated data is their fault.

[sbeach9]

DRM = Digital RENTAL Media no matter what they TELL you. If anyone buys into ANYTHING with DRM, Its their own fault when they find they DO NOT own what they pay for.

Wake up America, Stop buying DRM INFECTED ANYTHING!

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Wake up, socialists. Property rights are why most commercial works are created in the first place. Support the right of artists to sell their work.

[ducdebrabant]

"Socialists"? Who are you, Glen Beck? No wonder you're stuck on snide. All these thoughtful (and politely written) replies, and you just keep saying the same thing (Amazon did he right thing!) and ducking the larger issues. Anybody who wants to address the larger issues you call names. I'm not sure it's particularly mature of you even to be a part of this discussion. Most bloggers put all their thoughts into their article, and let the chips fall where they may. They don't endlessly wrangle with the commenters. But if you're going to do it, at least be a little urbane about it. Try turning the matter around. If writers can worry about the mechanisms used to steal their work, and the mechanisms which might be used to undo the damage, why cannot the owners of books worry that the mechanism by which they bought them can also be used either to alter them or take them away?

[ducdebrabant]

By the way, books are not simply "commercial works" and "property rights" are NOT, as a matter of fact, the reason most books are written in the first place. At least not most of the books I care to read.

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

I said "most commercial works" and I meant "most commercial works". It was a true statement.

Read what you like, of course, but respect professional writers and their right to sell their work on their terms.

[gggg sssss]

@ Peter - so please explain how our freind g. Orwell ( RIP ) is missing out on some royalties here.

[eadeguzman]

Peter, Peter, Peter... Some respect, please?

[Peter N. Glaskowsky]

Again with the "respect."

You don't want respect. You just want me to stop disagreeing with people who are wrong, and often just plain stupidly wrong. People, for example, who criticize me for failing to mention in my article that Amazon recanted its remote-delete policy, in spite of the fact that I DID mention that.