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.
Most Popular
The yogurt makers of tech: Gadgets to avoid
Don't buy these one-trick ponies--unless you like gizmos that gather dust.
Google wants to unclog Net's DNS plumbing
The Net giant, ever eager for a faster Internet, debuts its Google Public DNS service. With it, Google could become even more central to the Net.
About Speeds and Feeds
Silicon Valley-based computer architect and chip analyst Peter N. Glaskowsky attends a variety of industry conferences throughout the year to meet with industry thought leaders and dig into the future of computing technology. In Speeds and Feeds, he analyzes trends in system architecture and interface design, as well as market and political pressures surrounding those trends. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Add this feed to your online news reader
Speeds and Feeds topics
The ones who purchased these two books are not at fault. Copyright responsibility is with Amazon and the publisher. As consumers, we don't even know how much Amazon pays to the publisher and how much the publisher pays the copyright holder. This is not even one of those instances wherein a $1,000 product was mistakenly priced at $100 and the customers forced the vendor to honor it. What is so incredulous that you can buy these books for 99 cents when you can as easily get them for free (albeit illegal) in the US but not in other countries?
Someone at Amazon screws up. Yes, things happen. And the person who pushed the panic button to revoke all these purchases DID NOT do the right thing. Even Amazon, as a company, now says they will no longer handle it that way in the future. You cannot just say they should act like nothing happened, because something already did.
It's not hard to understand that this action has harmed some students who were required to read George Orwell's works. It's not hard to understand that some people might have suddenly ended up with nothing to read on their trans-Pacific flights or on vacations outside of Whispernet coverage. While the number of people affected might not be many, if we use this as precedent, how many students might suddenly end up without their textbooks in the middle of the semester if they use a Kindle?
I also don't see the stolen car on your driveway as a good analogy. One doesn't "accidentally" buy stolen cars. People check all kinds of documents because they are worth much more. One should not be subjected to read copyright law if they purchase a book from Amazon. If you want a car analogy, it's like renting a car from Hertz, then they discovered that there was some crime committed in that car you rented by someone who rented it prior to you. They then proceeded to trace the car using GPS, then took it away from the motel parking lot without notifying you.
I had high regard for Amazon prior to this. It's not like I was expecting to be vigilant of illegal stuff, as if I was purchasing from someone at Craigslist or eBay. They're supposed to be a reputable vendor. If I purchase a computer from HP or Dell, I should not doubt that the Microsoft license there is genuine. If I purchase shoes from the Nike factory outlet store, they better not be Nike knockoffs. If I purchase a diamond ring from Tiffany's, if they say they're genuine diamonds, they better be. And they better not suddenly whisk away that stone from someone who's about to propose because it's actually a blood diamond. It's their responsibility to confirm these, not ours! That's why people will pay the higher prices from these vendors, so we don't need to bother showing our lawyers everything we bought!
I think anyone who discovers they have unintentionally participated in an illegal transaction has the right to take reasonable steps to undo the transaction. Now, that doesn't mean breaking into someone's house, it doesn't mean hacking into someone's computer; but those things didn't happen here either. Amazon had permission to manage the contents of these Kindles, and having put the files in question onto these Kindles, it knew exactly what to remove.
If anyone was harmed in this situation, it was by the action of the third-party seller that offered to sell e-books it didn't have the right to sell, not by Amazon.
What Amazon did was reasonable. It was a new solution to a new problem, and it is undoubtedly going to become more common over time. I approve.
" Because Amazon, unlike Apple, didn't specifically reserve the right
of self-help, its remote deletion may both have broken laws and
rendered Amazon subject to a lawsuit," -Glenn Fleishman Tidbits
Amazons rules never say they have the right to delete content on your Kindle whereas Apple clearly says that it has the right. - another analogy used wrongly by Peter.
"Apple and its licensors reserve the right to change, suspend, remove, or disable access to any Products, content, or other materials comprising a part of the Service at any time without notice."
Amazon has no such statement and by removing content AND "Amazon certainly made the wrong move by deleting the books remotely without advance warning, taking along with them any associated
bookmarks and notes." - again Peter's assumption that bookmarks and notes were not deleted is completely incorrect.
Maybe Peter should actually read 1984 and Animal Farm. It would seem you need to learn about Big Brother and the rights of citizens everywhere.
The fact that some other guy has a contrary opinion doesn't mean anything.
Apple doesn't write the laws or set precedents.
Amazon may have the legal authority to do what it did even without such language in its terms of use agreement.
Amazon didn't delete any associated bookmarks and notes; see earlier in this thread, where someone explains how the New York Times published yet another unresearched claim that turned out to be wrong.
I have read 1984 and Animal Farm. They have nothing to say about this issue.
I linked people in that blog to this conversation because I feel Jaleth had an unusually interesting idea to consider. I also have room there (Kindleworld) to give more information and one of them is the following:
Amazon did delete associated bookmarks and notes for the book because these are put into any book's associated secondary file, which logs info such as our last page read and the notes and highlighting involved.
It's a binary file. Amazon does, however, also provide another copy of our notes and highlighting for any books, and these copies are put into our "My Clippings" file, which is a pure-text file which the customer can at any time copy to the computer and edit and print, and this is a very good study tool. Since no one should copy the entire text to the My Clippings file, there are limits placed on that. All clippings from all reading go into this file, willy nilly.
In Justin's case (and I verified this with him yesterday), the 3rd copy of the notes he took, which are placed on our personal Amazon web-pages that display for us on a single-page all our notes for a book, -was- removed.
These are not normally removed when -we- ourselves decide to delete a book after we finish it -- because we may later want to re-download the book and associated notes So, these are kept intact on the webpage for us (when we make a decision to delete a book from the Kindle).
That third copy of Justin's notes for '1984' were removed from that webpage as was the actual associated book file holding the original notes. The good thing was Amazon had the constructive idea of giving its Kindle customers a special file that can hold notes taken on the various books and articles read. It's a jumble of notes, as all entries are made chronologically and notes from everything one is reading are run together. But it still can be useful.
So, yes, Amazon did delete associated book-notes but they make a catch-all file that holds copies of all notes taken for the books and articles that one is reading. There is also a Word macro made by someone that organizes the info from My Clippings file to put all the notes from any book together as a unit. I of course won't promote that :-)
My own take is somewhere between yours and the angry crowd, and I admire that you took on the world here.
I don't think Amazon should have (nor had to) delete a file that customers purchased without at least telling us in advance and giving the real reason why. I feel customers should have been asked to delete them. But I think Amazon now realizes that, for survival reasons :-)
- Andrys
I'm sorry your link was deleted. I asked the CNET editors to clean up the extra copies of your comment, and in the process, an editor decided to remove your link. (I don't have the power to edit or remove comments here.)
Although self-promotion is apparently prohibited, presumably it's okay if I mention your link, so I will:
http://kindleworld.blogspot.com/
Thanks for the additional information you've provided above. It's interesting that there are so many places where user notes and other book-specific information end up, and it's very interesting that some of Justin's information was deleted while some survived.
I think it's entirely wrong for Amazon to delete user-created content under any circumstances, and I can even see where this could become a problem in routine use-- independent of any copyright problems like this one.
As you know, blogs, magazines, and newspapers are all made available on the Kindle only temporarily, and one can imagine Amazon offering other items on a rental or subscription basis, possibly including entire books. All of these things are eventually deleted from customer Kindles by Amazon as a matter of course.
Do you know if user information is also deleted irretrievably in this situation?
I'm not sure what good it would do to retain bookmarks without the original document, so I'm not too worried if those disappear. But notes of any kind should remain available-- and not just in a single big jumbled up file, but in separate files clearly associated with the original document, whether it remains on the Kindle or not.
Anyway, thanks again. I think I should probably write a summing-up piece to highlight your comments, Jaleth's, and some of the other good thoughts that have come out of this discussion. So keep an eye open for that.
I agree that it's entirely wrong for Amazon to delete user-created content ... someone there was not thinking.
It's mitigated only by their forethought in creating an extra copy of the user content in text format which is not deleted.
<<As you know, blogs, magazines, and newspapers are all made available on the Kindle only temporarily, and one can imagine Amazon offering other items on a rental or subscription basis, possibly including entire books. All of these things are eventually deleted from customer Kindles by Amazon as a matter of course.>>
Yes, daily deletions are done for blog-subscriptions in that they're replacing the latest blog entries; however, the current entry will include the last 25 posts in a blog, so that's doable. An exception: New York Times Latest News, a fantastic subscription for $2/mo. which comes to your Kindle 3 or 4 times a day as later news comes in. Best and most popular subscription available, for me -- and each new edition overwrites the old one. That is clearly stated and in this case that's fine. So many of us are used to the idea that they can delete content but with our advance clear understanding, which is where the problem was this time.
> Do you know if user information is also deleted irretrievably in this situation?
Not really, because if I really want to keep something from these issues before the new edition takes its place, I use the menu option to make a text clipping from an article and that goes into the My Clippings file also. Any highlighting or note I take would go in there.
However, there is a problem that affects a few people who want to keep older issues (which is an option on the menu).of newspapers or magazines -- this is like people who keep older copies on their shelves but we can search ours with the Kindle.
I've explained some problems with the policies for subscriptions/periodicals in detail at:
http://kindleworld.blogspot.com/2009/05/going-from-kindle-2-to-or-adding-dx.html
Essentially: The problem is the inability to open, for viewing on a replacement or subsequent Kindle, any older magazines or newspaper issues that were purchased more than 7 issues past.
Amazon says this is what the publishers want. In my own view, publishers care probably that a subscription be used by one person but not just on one Kindle device, ever.
There is less concern over this, I've found, as newspapers are felt to be more ephermeral. But some use them for reference, and on the Kindle, they are searchable. Amazon encourages the idea of carrying libraries in the small package.
I wrote the following last week on the Amazon forums:
------- "...if a customer lives alone and purchases two Kindles and uses one at home and one outside when commuting or shopping, the customer *cannot* use what s/he *bought* for personal use except on one of the two devices. I would think the "publishers" that Amazon explains are responsible for this policy would care mainly that the subscription be for one customer (not expecting Kindle enthusiasts would have more than one Kindle).
Amazon knows that customers will buy add'l Kindles for different reasons now, since they advertise the DX as being for different purposes. I think they're so busy trying to beat the competition in this new e-book arena that they spend no time thinking about how these things affect the very customers they want.
Mainly, I want to share my older magazines with myself, but apparently that's an Amazon sin :-) ------- "
I don't mean to make anyone angrier with Amazon. This case is just one of laziness, since it would cause more work to make sure that older issues work with newly acquired Kindles when the publishers have wanted these issues to be available on a server for no more than 7 or so issues, per Amazon.
The technical reason, then, is that the subscription is keyed to a specific Kindle device, as agreed to with periodical publishers, and if the customer gets another Kindle, the new device can't be used for the older issues, no matter what because Amazon no longer has them which would allow them to easily place the new device ID in a certain field of the file.
. This is written policy, at least, that you can be aware of before subscribing (though few would find it). It's in their support FAQ.
Regardless, I find my Kindles invaluable for my own focus and interests. There is a lot of thought that went into these, as far as the study-tools go, and it's made me more attached to reading than ever before. And I have to say that's an understatement.
- Andrys
Even Bezos agrees with us that Amazon was wrong in deleting these files. And 1984 says a LOT about what you are advocating. It is wrong to take away private material (digital or physical) that is in someone's personal possesion without a court order/search warrant. That's what is so wrong about your thinking. It's not even logical. I think you need to take your own advice and "Get over it" You're wrong, completely wrong
And I don't really care whether Bezos apologized, or whether he really meant it. Amazon did the right thing. If it had handled the situation better there would never have been any controversy.
"Amazon may have the legal authority to do what it did even without such language in its terms of use agreement."
So you are saying the term of use agreement is meaningless? That corporations can do what they want when they want? Let face it Amazon term of use never mention anything about deleting user purchased book (they use the word permanent) and your argument is unsound, your responds is rude and very stubborn.
For example, you'll notice that the Kindle terms of use agreement doesn't describe Amazon's return policies at all, or its procedures for processing credit-card payments and refunds.
Obviously, those other things must be governed by different documents. So, potentially, is Amazon's authority to remove documents from customer Kindles when they were put there inappropriately in the first place.
I think this is a sound argument and not at all rude. But yes, I am very stubborn when I'm sure I'm right. I think everyone ought to be.
I think the response to your last point is that in this particular case (illegal edition), Amazon never had the right to license a permanent copy to anyone.
- Andrys
An article that few saw but which speaks to some of this 'private network' theory.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/07/25/kindle_conundrum/
- Andrys
And again- wake up each morning and find out what they have decided you are permitted to read today? Who needs this? You can get a netbook for the same price, have a real computer, and keep any files you load on it.
so here, its like my car getting stolen, me finding it parked down the street, driving my car back home, then waking up in the morning to find that the cops have stolen my "stolen" car from me. Since the book is public domain here, amazon illegally stole my legally purchased property without my consent.
the stolen car example is interesting because the "car cloning" scam comes to mind. Stolen vehicles go to a chop shop where their VIN numbers and paperwork are forged to make them seem legitimate. They are then resold as used cars at dealerships, and potential buyers have absolutely no way of knowning. Of course the police can do an investigation that uncovers the chain of criminal activity and find your car was stolen. So what do they do, they take it away...people are left with their money taken and their car gone.
The moral of the story- people who pay money and get a stolen car that is taken away are called VICTIMS! Their money has been STOLEN from them!
They have a right to mad. They have a right to criticize the shady dealership. Amazon is like that shady dealership. They might not be the Mexican crime boss, but they ran their business recklessly without thinking of the consequences and thus should be demonized.
No matter how you define right or wrong this should be seen as a warning to would-be customers that Kindle buys have an element of risk, like "Bubba's Autoplex" and not say, Carmax and their "carfax" history reports.
There's a difference--both legal and moral--between asking for something back and simply taking it back. Especially if someone is using and depending on it, as is the case with students who were studying the book and making annotations, or simply casual readers who were in the middle of reading it.
If you read the lawsuit, you'd also find that Amazon flat-out lied numerous times to its customers when contacted regarding this.
Amazon is basically acting like a disreputable pawnbroker after its been caught selling stolen merchandise, compounding the error by taking items back from honest buyers without their consent.
In fact, before the lawsuit was filed, it was clear that the plaintiff didn't actually lose anything except the book itself, which was never his in the first place.
And if you do buy stolen property, someone WILL take it away from you without your consent. New technology allowed this inevitable result to be achieved with much less grief and cost than would previously have been required. Sounds good to me.
. png
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Your comment above immediately jumped out as being off-the-cuff and ill conceived since even basic paralegals know that 'good-faith purchases' of stolen goods do not necessarily qualify for repossession. That definitely appears the case here, where Amazon apparently permitted one of its registered participants to offer e-books for sale thru Amazon's system to readers who had no idea the books' copyrights didn't permit such sales. In Amazon's rush to protect itself from any litigation by the books' copyright holder, they hastily 'reacquired' the e-books (does anyone know how to spell T-H-E-F-T ?) which had been purchased by unknowing users. The fact that Amazon refunded their purchase prices is completely irrelevant, since the property involved (the e-books that had been purchased, not their digital rights) belonged to the purchasers, not to Amazon. (Amazon could have easily e-mailed those purchasers offering to buy back the copies at a premium, but hey, that was obviously way too inconvenient for them).
In this case its obvious that Amazon should get their comeuppance harshly and quickly by whatever means, including the class-action lawsuits that have been filed, and which the everyone should actively support. It would also be a good idea for the Obama administration to draft legislation specifically outlawing Amazon's actions, if they do not yet exist.
And judging by the other user comments (and your responses) above Peter, its fairly obvious that you're on the wrong side of a loosing argument -you should just give up and admit you made a mistake so that your readership won't come to believe that you suffer chronic foot-in-mouth-disease.
I have not read any article written by him since, and I'm careful to check the author's name now when checking CNet to ensure I don't waste time on the rantings of someone suffering from what seems to be an inferiority complex. Amazon is now replacing the books they removed, or giving $30 to those who prefer the money. Clearly, they *do* know what happened.
- by albertsoler September 7, 2009 11:47 AM PDT
- Amazon was wrong and it just admitted so by their actions this week. They are offering either to re-instate the deleted copies or a $30 coupon. And yet, you disagree. The correct action, from the beginning, was to make amends with a financial settlement with the owners of the copyright -- even at the risk of some financial loss as it was Amazon's mistake and not the purchasers'.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 6 of 6 pages (374 Comments)Comparing this to unknowingly purchasing a stolen car is both illogical and deliberately deceptive in order to make an inexplicable argument more sound than it ever could be. Besides, the police have the right to impound a stolen vehicle. Private citizens, small businesses, and corporations DO NOT!
Your insistence that invasion into one's property is justifiable is something the founding fathers disagreed with you wholeheartedly. When government entities do that without the proper warrants, cases get dismissed -- sometimes tragically. When private citizens do that, (which include corporations), they either go to jail, get sued or both -- and rightfully so.