Amazon deletes legally purchased Kindle books

[AdminAssistant]

The problem of not working on your monitor.

Oh, sorry, that was a joke....and I should really go to bed. Brain not working at 100% capacity.

[tabbyblack13]

Off topic

Ya know, a decent pen or highlighter would solve that problem.

That makes me think of a dumb blond joke


Back on topic
This publisher that didn't have the rights to sell the electronic versions of these books. Because of that Amazon was forced to take back what they could and give a refund. Now for a paper book it is harder. If the publisher didn't have the proper rights then money would be paid to the owner. Also paper books have a clear ownership, it might not be so with electronic versions at the time the Kindle came out.

[Pedersen]

This publisher that didn't have the rights to sell the electronic versions of these books.

I've been pondering based on that information since I first heard it a few days ago ( a week, maybe more? dunno). Amazon is a whole let less of a set of jerks in this particular situation, and the publisher that claimed to have the rights needs to be in a whole lot of trouble. That having been said...

Because of that Amazon was forced to take back what they could and give a refund.

Why? Amazon is not in law enforcement. They made transactions in good faith, as did the people who bought the electronic copies of the books. The law should protect them in this case, and require all recompense to be paid by the publisher that claimed to have the rights but did not.

Now for a paper book it is harder. If the publisher didn't have the proper rights then money would be paid to the owner.

And why should the electronic versions be any different? I have seen so many bad patents which amount to "doing an ordinary process on the internet". Times do exist where the law should treat the internet differently, but this does not seem to be one of them.

Again, the people who screwed up and (apparently) acted in bad faith are the ones who should be forced to pay, not Amazon, and not Amazon's customers.

Also paper books have a clear ownership, it might not be so with electronic versions at the time the Kindle came out.

Unfortunately, you have chosen to use ownership in an unclear fashion. Do you mean ownership of the physical object, or ownership of the copyright?

If you mean ownership of the physical object, then why is the ownership any different between a paperback book and a file?

If you mean ownership of the copyright, then that is trivial to track electronically. In fact, other publishers have been doing just this sort of thing on other devices for many years longer than the Kindle has existed.

I do have to amend my earlier statements, though. As of now, I will still never buy a Kindle, but that is because I now know that Amazon has a remote kill switch that is able to delete content that I have purchased, and they are able to do it without notification or consent on my part. I won't allow such a device to be in my possession.

[BroomJockey]

It's bloody hard to distribute a paper book that you don't have the rights to. It's literally tens of thousands of dollars for a print run of a couple thousand. And getting in to a shop is nigh impossible if you're not going through a distributor. The best you'd be likely to do would be an adjunct business like the Amazon partners.

Really, though I don't blame Amazon for pulling the books, I've thought about this a lot, and come to a personal conclusion. Amazon DID fuck up. And hard. If they're selling and distributing something like this, they really need to monitor their upload service a little better. It's one thing to simply make space available, like the used services. It's another to let it be put on to a device you control.

[Boozy]

Why? Amazon is not in law enforcement. They made transactions in good faith, as did the people who bought the electronic copies of the books. The law should protect them in this case, and require all recompense to be paid by the publisher that claimed to have the rights but did not.

Amazon has likely signed contracts with most major publishers that require them to make a reasonable effort to secure and safeguard the intellectual property rights of said publishers. Civil law is a mess when it comes the intellectual property (since there is still not enough precedent about things like this), so Amazon was attempting to cover their butts.

[Pedersen]

Amazon has likely signed contracts with most major publishers that require them to make a reasonable effort to secure and safeguard the intellectual property rights of said publishers. Civil law is a mess when it comes the intellectual property (since there is still not enough precedent about things like this), so Amazon was attempting to cover their butts.

I was going to let this go, since I felt you were probably right. At least, right up until I read an apology from Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon. Nowhere in that apology does it mention that it was contractually required to do so.

Furthermore, in another article about this, Amazon has promised that it will not delete already downloaded content from the Kindle again. This is further proof that Amazon was not contractually required to do so.

And the final nail in that coffin comes, in my mind, from the fact that no one has mentioned this elsewhere as anything more than speculation.

Amazon, from everything I can tell, was not required in any fashion to perform the deletions. In fact, they have promised they will never do it again. To me, this says that they are not contractually obligated to do so. As for covering their asses, when they make promises stating that they won't delete already downloaded content in future, they now leave that same ass open for spanking by the publishers that they were trying to appease in the first place.

I do feel some pity for them: They are caught between a rock and a hard place. Anger the publishers, and lose the content. Anger the customers, and lose the sales. Of course, one extremely simple change to the system would have made the whole point moot: Don't include the ability to remotely delete already downloaded content. Without that, this debacle could not have occurred. All that Amazon could have done would be to say to the original rights holder "Look, we're sorry, but we can't do anything. We acted in good faith, so go sue the people who lied to us."

That ability should not have been in the Kindle to start. That was their mistake. And until it's removed, along with the ability to force the Kindle to update (so it can't be re-inserted later automatically), I won't buy such a device. I'll stick with the other e-readers out there, which do a very nice job on their own, and don't include that ability.

[Boozy]

And the final nail in that coffin comes, in my mind, from the fact that no one has mentioned this elsewhere as anything more than speculation.

I was merely speculating too. Contracts that require reasonable safeguarding of IP rights are becoming so standard in this industry (at least in Canada), I just assumed there would be one involved.

[tabbyblack13]

Unfortunately, you have chosen to use ownership in an unclear fashion. Do you mean ownership of the physical object, or ownership of the copyright?

I mean the ownership of the copyright.

I can't blame Amazon for pulling the books. Covering your but is one of the things large companies do the best.

[Flyndaran]

I mean the ownership of the copyright.

I can't blame Amazon for pulling the books. Covering your but is one of the things large companies do the best.

The issue is that Amazon stole many e-books that were legally obtained. No one gets to steal my physical books just because they believe I may have obtained it illegally. That's what police and courts are for.

[BroomJockey]

The issue is that Amazon stole many e-books that were legally obtained.

Did they? Steal, that is. After all, they refunded the purchase price. They simply nullified the transaction. While morally ambiguous, they didn't commit a crime under current laws. And if you look at it from the perspective of bootlegged DVDs and similar merchandise, you wouldn't have even got your money back, if the item was seized under counterfeiting laws.

[Flyndaran]

Did they? Steal, that is. After all, they refunded the purchase price. They simply nullified the transaction. While morally ambiguous, they didn't commit a crime under current laws. And if you look at it from the perspective of bootlegged DVDs and similar merchandise, you wouldn't have even got your money back, if the item was seized under counterfeiting laws.

Would you have a problem if I took your car but left money in your mail box? It's still theft to take objects, and according to the pro-copywright people, information is just as real as objects.
The law says that you have to prove that my object is stolen before the authorities can take it.

[BroomJockey]

Would you have a problem if I took your car but left money in your mail box?

Not the same. What would be the same is the dealership taking the car back, and leaving my money. Make sure you actually understand the situation before you throw out crappy analogies. And if they had no intention of selling the car to someone else after they took it from me, I'd be upset, but kinda hard-pressed to know what exactly would need to be done.

[Nyoibo]

The analogy does still stand, it's not legal to take something back even if you give the money back after a transaction has been completed, unless it is with the full consent of the current owner, the fact that it was an electronic file and not a physical item does not negate that fact.

"Nullifying the transaction" as you put it is only valid if done before the customer has taken ownership of the item and even then is still iffy.

This may be a case however, of technology advancing faster than law.

[BroomJockey]

The analogy does still stand,

No it doesn't. In his analogy, he'd have no right to the vehicle in any case. He'd be making a new sale, not nullifying an old one. In the *actual real world situation* the person who sold it found out the product was provided to them under false pretences, and made motion to appease the true owner of the work.

To expand on my previous analogy, what it's really similar to is if someone snuck in to a Ford plant, stole a new car, sold it to a used dealership, I bought it from the used dealership, and then they discovered it was stolen and that Ford wanted it back, so they come to my house, take it, and leave my cash and a note explaining the situation. Hey, I bought the car fair and square! Should still me mine, eh?

[Nyoibo]

In that situation they have no right nor legal recourse to re-take the car, it's a matter for the authorities, no private party has the right to sieze the property of another, no matter the circumstances unless it is with full consent of the property owner.