Kindle user says Amazon remotely wiped her whole library [UPDATED: see first post]

[kennyc]

Well at least it helps to get the word out on the evils of DRM, eh.

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/...being-deleted/

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Billi

True. And maybe an equally clear demonstration why it is vital to fight monopolies.

No. Not any more than if her local one-branch bank had locked her out of her account, or out of her safe deposit box.

[koland]

Originally Posted by Anjohl

I have just recently gotten into ebooks via my Kobo Touch, and this makes me glad I stayed away from Amazon. The gall of a company to REMOVE paid for product is appalling.

Just don't delete any book from your device (or any of their apps) that you got free - it perm deletes it from your library (even if it now costs money to get it back).

The only way to remove books from their app without affecting your library permanently is to use the clear data option (which removes all books).

I'd advise avoiding their devices and use another app to read your books, after downloading them for safety via ADE.

[koland]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

I agree with Anjohl.
When you buy downloaded digital media (from Amazon and most of its competitors), your continued possibility to access such media in the future depends on the vendor's benevolence, and on the efficacy of its fraud-detecting algorithms.

Worse, the original source of the media (not books, so far) can decide that they no longer want the vendor to allow access, on a periodic basis, for a temporary time or forever and the vendor will block you from downloading that content. This is routinely done with movies and it appears to be allowed with MP3's (and not just at Amazon).

[koland]

Originally Posted by ApK

No. Not any more than if her local one-branch bank had locked her out of her account, or out of her safe deposit box.

Exactly. Or if your credit card is shut off for detection of fraudulent activity (which you then clear up three days later, on Monday).

It is inconvenient and I would prefer it not take so long (and with most credit card issues, they do now have it down to a very short period or just a phone call), but I can see why it is necessary. Then again, many, many years ago I had my ATM card stolen (which I reported, along with credit cards in the wallet) and my bank accounts cleared out because the account was not locked when I called (on a Friday evening). Took months to straighten out and multiple, physical trips to the bank.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by koland

Exactly. Or if your credit card is shut off for detection of fraudulent activity (which you then clear up three days later, on Monday).

Ehm, no. When such a thing happens, I suppose that the card issuer shows to you its evidence of this fraudulent activity, and you can get a list of money movements to understand what was done with your card lately, and maybe the card issuer also tells you what kind of illicit activity allegedly took place. Then you and the card issuer can straighten up things by talking about these things.

In the case of the Norwegian Amazon user, Amazon did not show any evidence; it didn't say that there had been a violation; it didn't leave to the user the possibility to check anything, nor to discuss anything.
They said: According to our own criteria (which we won't disclose) your account is connected (in a way we won't tell you) to another one (you don't get to know which one) that was used (we don't tell you when or by whom) to do something wrong (you can't know what). For this "reason", we are suspending your account.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Ehm, no. When such a thing happens, I suppose that the card issuer shows to you its evidence of this fraudulent activity, and you can get a list of money movements to understand what was done with your card lately, and maybe the card issuer also tells you what kind of illicit activity allegedly took place. Then you and the card issuer can straighten up things by talking about these things.

In the case of the Norwegian Amazon user, Amazon did not show any evidence; it didn't say that there had been a violation; it didn't leave to the user the possibility to check anything, nor to discuss anything.
They said: According to our own criteria (which we won't disclose) your account is connected (in a way we won't tell you) to another one (you don't get to know which one) that was used (we don't tell you when or by whom) to do something wrong (you can't know what). For this "reason", we are suspending your account.

I was making the comparison in terms of thinking of it as a monopoly issue. It's not.

It IS, as you say, a transparency and customer relations issue. I think Amazon needs to improve there regardless of whether all the lockouts were perfectly appropriate or honest mistakes or capricious abuses.

To be fair, though, the credit card companies and banks behave as they do because of extreme amounts of regulation and legislation.

I don't think I'd like this issue address by subjecting retail businesses to the same amount of government control....that might be a cure far worse than the disease.

ApK

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by ApK

It IS, as you say, a transparency and customer relations issue. I think Amazon needs to improve there regardless of whether all the lockouts were perfectly appropriate or honest mistakes or capricious abuses.

I think it's more than that. It's an issue of untempered power of the content providers over their customers. It's frightening that the customers of Amazon (or Apple or...) practically do not have any rights over what they "bought". Not even the very basic right to be informed correctly about what it is that they are actually purchasing when they click the "Add to cart" button.

If a company which sells physical goods sells product B but puts on the box the picture and name of product A, it's a fraud. If a company which sells digital downloads sells a limited license to access a music track or a book under certain conditions and calls it "buying the track/book", are we sure that's not the same thing?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Not even the very basic right to be informed correctly about what it is that they are actually purchasing when they click the "Add to cart" button.

On the contrary, they have the right and freedom to choose to not read the TOS and blunder around in ignorance.

OK, that's not quite my take on it, but for the sake of a high-concept one-liner response, it'll do. I've posted on that matter elsewhere not too long ago. Suffice to say I don't think that's the issue.

ApK

[BoldlyDubious]

Here

http://www.teleread.com/drm/an-open-...-common-sense/

is someone who says reasonable things about the stuff we are discussing in this thread.
Maybe, just maybe, if enough cases such as that of the "Norwegian Amazon user" come up, more people will start thinking about what it means to "buy an ebook".

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Maybe, just maybe, if enough cases such as that of the "Norwegian Amazon user" come up, more people will start thinking about what it means to "buy an ebook".

Why do you assume they don't think about it already? Isn't also perfectly plausible that many people just don't give as much of a sh!t about it as you (or others) think they should? (Either that, or they do, and they've already come up with a way to appease their own personal sense of "ownership")

[ApK]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Here

http://www.teleread.com/drm/an-open-...-common-sense/

is someone who says reasonable things about the stuff we are discussing in this thread.
Maybe, just maybe, if enough cases such as that of the "Norwegian Amazon user" come up, more people will start thinking about what it means to "buy an ebook".

Doesn't sound all that reasonable to me. Sounds like yet another confused person trying to shove the rules for an intangible item in line with the terms and rules of a tangible item because they can't get their head around the fact that an ebook is different than a physical book, and just because we use a similar vocabulary around them does not change that.
As a wise man said, "If your cat has kittens in the oven, you don't call them biscuits."

Not that I don't agree with what the writer is trying to argue for in terms of rights and uses. I do. But her arguments are totally off the mark.

[BoldlyDubious]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why do you assume they don't think about it already? Isn't also perfectly plausible that many people just don't give as much of a sh!t about it as you (or others) think they should? (Either that, or
they do, and they've already come up with a way to appease their own personal sense of "ownership")

Every time I talk with someone that is contemplating getting a Kindle or has just bought one (the only two moments when this type of talk is interesting to "non-technical people") I find out that they haven't the faintest idea of what "buying a book" for their Kindle means. They know that you pay the money and you get the book on your device, and that's it.
At the moment, maybe they "don't give as much of a sh!t". When, ten years after, they want to change ebook vendor they will find out. I don't see why misleading marketing and abusive terms of service should be tolerated simply because there's people who is not careful enough (if you prefer: gullible) to fall for it without taking countermeasures (e.g.: strip DRM and backup).

Do you have data confirming that the general public of Kindle (or iPod or...) users knows what the terms of service are?

[shenye]

Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious

Do you have data confirming that the general public of Kindle (or iPod or...) users knows what the terms of service are?

Terms of services? I never read them. Perhaps I should be concerned.

Originally Posted by kennyc

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/...being-deleted/

Interesting quote (with my emphasis):

We are not advocating breaking the law, but we are demonstrating for non-American Kindle users how this technique can be used to safeguard against remote deletion tactics. Related laws may differ in countries around the world, so be sure to check your local situation if you’re unsure. In short, follow these instructions at your own risk.

Ars is a Condé Nast publication. I suppose with above disclaimer it's OK for a US magazine publisher to provide a step-by-step walkthrough in circumventing DRM?

[BoldlyDubious]

Apparently it is :-)
I'm glad that information about the problem (and possible solution) reaches wider audiences.
Maybe if enough people start stripping the DRM from their ebooks, publishers/distributors will start thinking about alternative methods to prevent illegal distribution (such as watermarking that does not prevent copying).

Mainly, it's a problem of pricing. If a vendor asks me a price that is comparable to that of the physical book, it should give me something that has similar features. For example: something that I can read wherever (i.e.: with whatever device) I want; that my family can read as well; that I can lend to my friends.
If the vendor wants to sell me something that gives to me a much narrower range of possibilities, we are talking about a much lower-grade product: so the vendor should ask a much lower price to me. And it should not be allowed to call it with the same name ("book") of the first one.