[JoeD]

I agree that it would be silly for a company to sue someone for stripping DRM on a product they've bought for the purpose of continued use of that product, but that doesn't mean it won't happen and be a costly affair to defend yourself, nor does it mean the person who has lost access to their account is an idiot for not doing so. Also, it doesn't mean the person who makes and distributes those tools everyone relies on to safe guard their purchases are any safer from prosecution. What would everyone say if AA stopped providing tools because of court threats and the existing tools become obsolete?

People in general don't know much if anything about DRM until it bites them, companies go out of their way to hide that it even exists or what its impact can have. There may very well be a lot of amazon customers now googling how to backup their purchases as a result of this story, who previously only stored a couple of books on their device and left the rest "backed up" in the archive. I don't think they're idiots for not having known to do so before hand.

I've always removed drm on my purchases for various reasons, initially because my device wasn't compatible with the drm but now I have one that is, I remove it incase I later buy a replacement that isn't or I lose access to my account. But I as many of you on here are fully aware of the implications of DRM. Put yourself in the shoes of someone who isn't (which is a lot of people) who are attracted to the kindle/amazon because it's trivial to use.

Yes there may be more to this story than has been reported, but based on what the article said, if amazon has refused to explain why the account is locked and if/when he would regain access, I see no reason for him not to dispute all the charges for the books he's lost access to.