Amazon deletes legally purchased Kindle books

[BroomJockey]

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.

And yet you continue to defend his analogy as a good one?

[IvorTangrean]

My take on it, if I owned a Kindle (which, after this and a couple of other stories, I never will):

I bought the electronic version of the book from Amazon. I entered into a contract to buy the product. I gave them money, they gave me a copy of the book. What happened with the publisher is not my concern or problem. Once the sale is done, unless the product is defective, it is now mine to control. The fact that Amazon has removed something from my property that was legally acquired by me is, at best, reprehensible.

If you read the agreement you don't own the e-books or the software to run the Kindle. Amazon has the rights to de-activate the OS on the hardware if they choose to.


http://www.stoweboyd.com/message/200...annotated.html

[Pedersen]

If you read the agreement you don't own the e-books or the software to run the Kindle. Amazon has the rights to de-activate the OS on the hardware if they choose to.

You did manage to quote my first post on this thread, which is good. I've learned since that post, and made a change (that I've quoted below).

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.

So, now that we have my updated position staring you in the face, I will ask you this simple question: How does what you stated above help Amazon at all? All you've done is prove that they had the legal permission to remove the data from the machine I bought.

Oh, feel free to spout copyright law at me. Doing software development all day every day, I'm completely ignorant of Title 17, USC, and all the other little bits of law that go along with it. I also know nothing of patents, trademarks, and the differences between the three.

Oh, wait, I got stopped being hit in the head by a hammer. That was stupid. I do know that bit of law far better than I would like. Of course, the fact that their inclusion of such a dubious "feature" was legal does not mean their inclusion was moral (see cases like Enron, Ameni Bahremi v. Majid Movahedi, Jim Crow laws of the US South, etc.). It also does not mean that their inclusion of said "feature" is something I should (or will) support. Until that "feature" is disabled (and the ability to re-enable it removed), I absolutely will not even be considering a Kindle, and instead will be looking at other devices on the market.

[IDrinkaRum]

A high school student is suing Amazon because not only did they take away the electronic books by Orwell, but they also took away his electronic notes.

[BroomJockey]

A high school student is suing Amazon because not only did they take away the electronic books by Orwell, but they also took away his electronic notes.

Kid's damned own fault. Lawsuit's retarded, and better not go anywhere. "I didn't know" is not a defence. They've done it before, and they've already promised to not do it again, so asking for a ban isn't going to help. And they can't give him a legitimate copy because there isn't one. That was the whole point of the original exercise.

[Flyndaran]

Kid's damned own fault. Lawsuit's retarded, and better not go anywhere. "I didn't know" is not a defence. They've done it before, and they've already promised to not do it again, so asking for a ban isn't going to help. And they can't give him a legitimate copy because there isn't one. That was the whole point of the original exercise.

Did you actually read the article. It says that he purchased the book legitimately. Theft is usually considered a crime and not "one's own fault".

[BroomJockey]

Theft is usually considered a crime and not "one's own fault".

I DID read the article! That would be how I knew how to respond. Amazing how that works, ya know.

Not legally theft. They're selling access, not a copy. That means they can revoke access. Learn the law, not the FUD. Further, crafting his notes so that they're specifically reliant on one copy of the book is idiotic. What if his Kindle was damaged? What if that file was corrupted? What if what if what if. He was a fucking dumbass for tying his notes for something that important to something so ephemeral. If you can't make back-ups, or obtain a second copy on short notice, then you shouldn't be using it, unless it's some hyper-rare, million-dollar book, and it's your own fault when ANYTHING happens to it.

[Pedersen]

Did you actually read the article. It says that he purchased the book legitimately. Theft is usually considered a crime and not "one's own fault".

Have you paid attention to what happened? Amazon sold rights to something they did not own. It would be the same as me coming to your home and selling a photocopy of a book I made off your shelves. I didn't have the right to sell it, therefore it is not possible for someone to have purchased it legitimately.

Amazon screwed up, big time, but not for the reason you've stated.

[Pedersen]

Further, crafting his notes so that they're specifically reliant on one copy of the book is idiotic. What if his Kindle was damaged? What if that file was corrupted? What if what if what if.

Normally we see relatively close to eye to eye, Broom, but this time, no. You are, sadly, wrong. The student in question did exactly what students around the world do when they buy a book: They take a highlighter, and they mark up the book, they write notes in the margins to help them remember why they highlighted that piece.

Now, Amazon came along and managed to rip out the book without taking away his notes. A poor analogy would be a bookseller managing to turn all the text in your purchased book white (no, I don't know how), on a white page. You have your notes, your highlights, etc, but they are useless.

Are all of these students morons for expecting to have continued access to the books they've purchased? Is this student a moron for carrying that same expectation over to an electronic device? Isn't it kind of the point of these epaper device that the student will be able to reduce the amount of paper he carries around? If so, why should he therefore have to keep his notes on paper still? If not, then what's the point of these devices at all?

What if his papers get dropped in a puddle? What if they get stolen? What if they get burned? What if what if what if. At some point, we have to at least try to rely on something.

The argument you're making is that he shouldn't rely on the Kindle. As I've already stated, that is an argument I agree with, though for different reasons than you've given. In this case, I don't blame the student. He used the tools in his possession in the same way that pretty well every other serious student uses the non-electronic versions of those tools. He didn't screw up. Amazon did, though their screwup occurred way before the first Kindle was ever sold.

[BroomJockey]

What if his papers get dropped in a puddle? What if they get stolen? What if they get burned? What if what if what if. At some point, we have to at least try to rely on something.

You're a programmer. How many back ups do you make of digital files which would be difficult to recreate? How many times on CS in Unsupportable have we gotten people saying "This frakker didn't make back ups, now he desperately needs to get a lost file back. Ass." As wonderful as the concept of a Kindle may be, it's not fully reliable technology, even without this backdoor. Paper mediums are more reliable, thus it's less foolish to have that as your only copy. After all, even a soaked book is salvageable with a minimum of effort. It won't be pretty after, but it still works well enough. And you can quickly get another copy. Bookstore, library, etc. To rely on a volatile storage format and be reliant solely on it IS a bad idea. His notes can't be used on a physical copy? Bad idea. If he'd made his notes in a separate file, not linked to that specific copy? Good idea! Resting your AP course on someone else's shoulders and trust them not to screw you over? Bad idea. If, even 10 years from now, Kindle-ish devices are around, then I'd say it's been proven well enough to risk being your sole device. Books have been around over a century. People know the risks. Apparently, he didn't know the risks of keeping things on the Kindle. Again, bad idea. Know the risks, evaluate the risks, and accept responsibility for the risks. Apparently, this kid did not do any of that. Not Amazon's fault.

[Flyndaran]

...Apparently, this kid did not do any of that. Not Amazon's fault.

No. The kid's mistake does not absolve Amazon of culpability. They are still mostly at fault.

[BroomJockey]

No. The kid's mistake does not absolve Amazon of culpability. They are still mostly at fault.

Culpability only applies to criminal acts. As I pointed out, by law, Amazon has done nothing wrong. As for Amazon being at fault, yes, their system for allowing people to upload books is flawed, as proven by the fact they've had multiple incidents, but the kid still is using "ignorance of the system" as a defence. "I thought this is how it worked" doesn't absolve you of being subject to a company's policies. They removed from circulation something that never should have been circulating in the first place. It's like a library refusing to renew a book when you go to renew it, as the book has been recalled. His lack of planning does not constitute legal grounds for a suit.

[Pedersen]

Chatting with Broom, we did find something that is worth thinking about. He hasn't replied to me yet about it though

Regardless of how much of a moron the student may have been, he does have an issue that is directly the fault of Amazon.

He made a transaction with them, and then relied on the product he purchased. He made notes on that product, and was preparing some sort of work based on that product. Now, though, the student is being required to do extra work. He has to replace the book, and transfer/update his notes to reflect the new locations of anything he felt noteworthy.

That is work that he would not have needed to do if Amazon had done their due diligence with their upload service, the service that was used to sell a book to which they did not own the copyright. Amazon screwed up, and they are liable for the work lost due to this. On the flip side, the original uploader is liable to Amazon for any bills that Amazon incurs due to this, and Amazon should go after that uploader as well.

On those points, I hope we can all agree.

[Flyndaran]

... They removed from circulation something that never should have been circulating in the first place. It's like a library refusing to renew a book when you go to renew it, as the book has been recalled. His lack of planning does not constitute legal grounds for a suit.

It's more like if the library staff snuck into my room to take back the book. Amazon didn't give any warning of their impeding action.

[BroomJockey]

It's more like if the library staff snuck into my room to take back the book. Amazon didn't give any warning of their impeding action.

As it was the process of syncing the Kindle that did it (ie "checking in with the library,"), no, my analogy is accurate. It wasn't that Amazon forced a connection and deleted it.