Comments on: Amazon says it won't repeat Kindle book recall

Company late Friday says it recalled an e-book because the publisher lacked book rights. However, in the future, it says it won't pull already downloaded material.

[merrily1941]

I want to add here how PITIFUL the library's OVERDRIVE system is. You have to download it time after time, with each new book you want to read or have read to you. After the 5th time, I gave up on this really bad system. Hows would you like to have to download stuff again and again on your computer I would have thought libraries were more intelligent than all this. I am putting this comment in here, as I think CNET commenters are intelligent! Can any of you improve the OVERDRIVE system? It is so clunky, a disgrace..

[Sam Papelbon]

so many idiots here. and i'm sure more will reply to this without using their brain first. the copy on amazon was unauthorized. it was not theirs to sell in the first place.

say you were walking down the street, and someone offered to sell you a painting for $50, which you decided to buy. suddenly the police show up and tell you the painting had been stolen from a museum. you do not get to keep the painting. nor would anyone shed a tear when you start complaining that you deserve to keep it because you paid for it.

you want to complain about being 'raped', take it to the copyright system, not amazon.

[magicmaster]

Sam, in case you forgot, the laws protected third parties from being liable for purchasing stolen goods if they are in good faith (in legal term).

Simply saying, you can not retreive someone else's properties without seeking permission or asking the court to decide on your case. Otherwise it's theft. Plain and simple.

[c-n-e-t]

Perhaps you should take your own advice and start using your brain.

Notice your analogy said it was the police that showed up to inform you that the painting had been stolen. Last I heard, Amazon is not the law!

What Amazon did is almost the same as if you bought a CD at Best Buy and later on, Best Buy found out that those CDs were bootlegged. So Best Buy waited until the next time you came back to their store and secretly remove the bootlegged CD from your backpack and left a note explaining what they did and the amount you paid for that CD. Best Buy had no right to remove that CD from your possesion. What they could do is post a sign in front of the store that informs the customers walking in that they accidentally sold a bootlegged copy of that CD and that if you had bought it previously, please bring it to the customer service desk for a full refund.

If Amazon had done the same by sending an email to all customers who purchased that book to please delete it and they would get full refund, no one would have any room to complain and they would not be caught in a PR disaster.

This is why they are now backpedaling and promised never to do it again.

[wshwe]

It's ironic that the books in question shouted Big Brother!

[SkydiveGuy]

Here is a solution:
http://blog.makezine.com/archive/2009/07/how_to_-_read_george_orwells_1984_o.html?CMP=OTC-0D6B48984890

and non-kindle owners need to understand that they never notified users of this action or reason, they do not list this ability to delete books remotely in their EULA or TOS.

If they did, I would not have an issue with what happened, but I was not told and I did not agree to it so that is where Kindle owners are having a problem.

If I was told why the book was going to be deleted and (at time of Kindle purchase) that they could delete the book, I would have no problem with what happened.

Lack of communication to Kindle users is what is pissing people off.

[mscientist]

Did anyone else notice the irony? Amazon removing these books could almost be described as... well... Orwelian.

[whattaguy62]

This is just the beginning of the insanity. What happens when President Obama wants the New York Times to redact an article on national defense grounds? Couldn't Amazon just come into your Kindle on orders of POTUS and replace the news story with one more to the liking of SecDef Gates? And would you be the wiser if they did? How would you know they did?

And what's the deal with air bags in cars? We pay for a car to have them but if we drive like we're supposed to we'll never see them....how do we know they are there? Put a cat in a sealed box with a Chevy Malibu?

[istill316]

Many times I have purchased something online, only to be told it was out of stock or the price was wrong, and so they refunded my money. Is that stealing because I didn't get the advertised product even though they gave all my money back? I think not! It's a mistake. Mistakes happen. Get over it.

If our country wasn't so focused on getting as much as possible for free or virtually free and instead actually cared that it takes effort to create products, including the Kindle, writing books, making music, proliferating news, producing movies, developing software, etc., and if copyright law was looked on favorably, instead of disdained by those who just want everything free, maybe we wouldn't have all these problems with the RIAA and people feeling offended by Amazon's protecting of publishers' rights.

Sure, you may wish you had something, but your wanting it doesn't mean you deserve it, and shouldn't hae ot pay for it. You don't deserve it.

The same thing applies to the United States government, with welfare and "free" healthcare for all. You've got to work in life to gain in life. Not everybody gets everything.

[freemarket--2008]

This is a poor case for your copyright argument. George Orwell is long gone. These books are freely available online as they are in the public domain in many countries, though not in the US.

[Sir Geek]

To me this is one of the best examples of why they current copyright system is messed up. The man has been dead for 59 years but his works (over 65+ years old) are still copyrighted and not part of the public domain.

Can someone tell me again why copyright + 98 years is good for the people (especially since when the time is almost up, they'll just increase the length of copyright) ?

[johnnyg77]

I love my Kindle! I don't like what Amazon did by removing books from owner's Kindle but honestly, it makes sense. In a way, those books were stolen because Amazon did not approve them being sold, so Amazon had a right to take them back. But, what they did should never happen again.

Amazon said that automated software caused the problem in the first place and then automated software caused the removal. I don't believe the removal part. I believe that people (Jeff Bezos) approved the removal before it happened. He runs a tight ship.

For those that won't buy a Kindle because of this problem: you wouldn't have bought one anyway. Some people don't like new things and especially messing with books. I love books but my Kindle has become my favorite tool for reading. I really prefer it to a book and can't believe I said that! It really is much better than a book in a lot of ways.

Digital books bring a basket of problems and the most important one is, I can't give my book away. I bought it and I should be able to give it away if I want. I want that right to be restored to me. How dare Amazon say I can't give away what I own!

Well, back to my Kindle!

[chuckwolber]

Amazing the number of commenters who simply do not get it. It has nothing to do with how cheap the book was or that it was pirated. The customer bought the book in good faith from Amazon, and Amazon demonstrated that it will take it back without asking. Even if they refund the money, this is still stealing.
Only the government can force you to sell something, it is a principle called Eminent Domain. Consider your righteous indignation when someone walks up to your house, drops a check in your hands and then orders you to get out *NOW*. Now explain how Amazon doing the same thing with a digital book you just purchased is any different.