Amazon's Apology for the Orwell Incident

[desertgrandma]

I received the same email Nate did, about the 1984 book. Here is a copy.

Hello,

On July 23, 2009, Jeff Bezos, our Founder and CEO, made the following apology to our customers:

“This is an apology for the way we previously handled illegally sold copies of 1984 and other novels on Kindle. Our “solution” to the problem was stupid, thoughtless, and painfully out of line with our principles. It is wholly self-inflicted, and we deserve the criticism we’ve received. We will use the scar tissue from this painful mistake to help make better decisions going forward, ones that match our mission.

With deep apology to our customers,

Jeff Bezos
Founder & CEO
Amazon.com”

As you were one of the customers impacted by the removal of a book from your Kindle device in January of this year, we would like to offer you your choice of an Amazon.com electronic gift certificate or check for $30. Unfortunately, we cannot make this title available on your Kindle again.

Please email Kindle customer support at kindle-response@amazon.com to indicate your preference. If you prefer to receive a check, please also provide your mailing address.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
The Kindle Team

Now, realize they already refunded the price I paid. I have no intention of "taking the money and run". It was no big deal, as I saw it, the book was uploaded illegally, Amazon didn't catch it immediately, and when they did, they took proper action. I got my money back, they got their book. Period.

I am aware when I turn on the Whispernet they have the ability to access my Kindle. Anyone with any common sense knows that. Either understand what you are buying, take steps to prevent this, or don't complain when books disappear.

[zacheryjensen]

Originally Posted by poohbear_nc

The fact that the only way to get an updated, or re-issued, verion of a book you have purchased is to ask for a refund (which triggers Amazon to remove your copy from your account & your K) and then repurchase it, suggests that your purchases live in a static environment at Amazon that is not updated. If you delete the copy off your K and then re-download the title from your archives, you simply get the same flawed copy. Also, I remember reading somwhere that annotations are stored in a separate file linked to the book file. These annotation files may not be affected by the book's deletion, or could be recovered from back-ups of the server.

Uh you're wrong about getting an updated version of a book. I got the original version of The Hobbit with some spelling errors that was originally released, and all I had to do to get the updated (fixed) version was delete it from my Kindle, and then get it out of the "archive" again.

[RWood]

According to Nate's front page post as quoted below, they are also refunding $30 for those that purchased the illegal copy of the Harry Potter books. (That thread is closed and discussion is pointed to this thread.)

Amazon expands the $30 credit

Back in January of this year someone posted illegal copies of Harry Potter ebooks on Amazon. I bought one in order to check its legitimacy. I later reported the ebook and asked for a refund, which I received.

A few minutes ago I got the email we'd been hearing about all day. Amazon just offered me the $30 credit, and I hadn't bought 1984. The one small difference is that Amaozn couldn't offer me the ebook. I'm deeply surprised. This was a smart move, I must say.

[sforce]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Their lawyers have probably told them that if they get sued for deleting eBooks, they will lose. This is probably their way of trying to keep the users happy and prevent legal action.

Companies (not just Amazon) don't do things like this out of the goodness of their hearts. There's usually a financial/legal reason under the covers.

I think Amazon is doing whatever they can to forestall any legal action that may force them to divulge actual numbers of Kindles sold.

God forbid the courts force reality upon the hype...

[nekokami]

I have to say I factor this action of Amazon's into my recommendations of ebook readers to people who ask me about them. I know how to back up my content (I'm reading Kindle books on an iPod Touch), but a lot of people I know aren't that technical. Amazon might never do something like this intentionally again, but what about accidents or hackers? No thanks.

[brecklundin]

what rights in terms of suing Amazon are being purchased by accepting ANY OF THE OPTIONS?

I think Amazon is in deep screwed mode right now and sure sounds like they are trying to buy their way out and mitigate potential damages. It might even be that by deleting the content they committed an act of computer hacking. Or they worry a jury will see it as nothing but hacking and the black hat kind...I would agree to nor accept anything from Amazon...we have yet to see the end of this. What Amazon did to customer's PRIVATE PROPERTY is completely unacceptable.

Remember the two issues are mutually exclusive, Amazon had no rights to the book but also do not have the right to break into your device...it's going to be interesting.

[Journier]

Originally Posted by ahi

The minor one of having to restore from backup, along with probably a lasting nagging feeling of discomfort arising from the confirmed knowledge that content you store on your device may be violated by Amazon at their pleasure.

- Ahi

This is one of the reasons I have never purchased a Kindle, as much as I believe it is a really neat device.

[Ankh]

One must not put a loaded rifle on the stage if no one is thinking of firing it.

The wait is over, the big gun went off ... and guys from Amazon shot themselves in the foot?!

This is beyond stupidity. Whispernet is what differentiates their service. The last thing that Amazon needs is to shatter customer confidence to Whispernet.

What a flop.

[John Bailey]

Originally Posted by brecklundin

what rights in terms of suing Amazon are being purchased by accepting ANY OF THE OPTIONS?

At a guess, All of them. Accept the offer, and you can't sue. You have settled. And as mentioned elsewhere, there seems to be a few more books that are getting the same "We goofed, take the money and keep it to yourself..." deal.

I think Amazon is in deep screwed mode right now and sure sounds like they are trying to buy their way out and mitigate potential damages. It might even be that by deleting the content they committed an act of computer hacking. Or they worry a jury will see it as nothing but hacking and the black hat kind...I would agree to nor accept anything from Amazon...we have yet to see the end of this. What Amazon did to customer's PRIVATE PROPERTY is completely unacceptable.

Agreed. It smells of pre-emptive law suit avoidance. Or at least, damage limitation. And a possibility of them being forced to give up some of the power they exert through the Kindle. If a few hundred or even a few thousand people are in on the suit, it looks worse than if only a handful of principled customers are annoyed enough to make a fuss.

Remember the two issues are mutually exclusive, Amazon had no rights to the book but also do not have the right to break into your device...it's going to be interesting.

But the plot thickens.. On looking up the "third party who illegally uploaded the e-books to Amazon.." at http://www.Mobilereference.com I see an announcement that All Mobilereference books have been withheld from sale. Like many, I assumed to was an individual who had scanned and OCRed the books, and was having a go at getting as much money as they could before someone noticed. But as it turns out, it was a legitimate publisher

A new wrinkle appears.

According the legitimate and established e-book publisher in question, they marked the books as limited to Australia as the copyright period there is different to the US, so both books are in fact Public domain.... In Australia. This was on the Mobipocket web site, where they submitted the books for publication.

And 100% legal for them to sell. Amazon's Mobipocket scraper ignored this limitation and took the books anyway. Perhaps nobody bothered to program this field in the scraper program. So the "third party" that uploaded the books in question may in fact have been Mobipocket... Who are owned by Amazon, or Amazon themselves.

At the very least, the potential damage to the publisher's reputation could be argued to be quite serious. not to mention loss of revenue on 2000 e-books for how ever long the exclusion remains.

Could get very interesting to watch. Provided you are not working for Amazon.

It isn't over yet.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by John Bailey

A new wrinkle appears.

According the legitimate and established e-book publisher in question, they marked the books as limited to Australia as the copyright period there is different to the US, so both books are in fact Public domain.... In Australia. This was on the Mobileread web site, where they submitted the books for publication.

And 100% legal for them to sell. Amazon's mobi scraper ignored this limitation and took the books anyway. Perhaps nobody bothered to program this field in the scraper program. So the "third party" that uploaded the books in question may in fact have been Mobileread... Who are owned by Amazon, or Amazon themselves.

At the very least, the potential damage to the publisher's reputation could be argued to be quite serious. not to mention loss of revenue on 2000 e-books for how ever long the exclusion remains.

Could get very interesting to watch. Provided you are not working for Amazon.

It isn't over yet.

MOBILEREAD ARE NOT OWNED BY AMAZON. WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT SITE

Please don't spread such wildly inaccurate information!

[John Bailey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

MOBILEREAD ARE NOT OWNED BY AMAZON. WE ARE AN INDEPENDENT SITE

Please don't spread such wildly inaccurate information!

My unreserved apologies. I was looking at something else, and I realised my mistake. I meant to say mobipocket. Going to edit my post to correct the error right now.

[HarryT]

Thank you.

[HansTWN]

My guess is that Amazon's offer has more to with recent market developments than fear of lawsuits (they are probably well covered through their contract with users and copyright laws). They believe that Sony and BN are about to seriously challenge their position in the US and such a generous offer will make Amazon look real good in the eyes of prospective buyers. Market economics and competition working for the users again. Enjoy the 30 bucks!

[pwalker8]

I got the same e-mail ($30 gift certificate or check) except it was for "Atlas Shrugged". I sent back an e-mail to the included link saying that I personally had no problem with them removing the book, but if it made them feel better, that I would take the gift certificate.

I look at it this way, if I buy stolen property, even if I don't realize it's stolen, and the police track it down to me, I am expected to return the property to the rightful owner. The police doesn't have to ask my permission. I don't see this as anything different. I understand that some feel differently and that's fine. That's just the way that I feel about it. Of course, if Amazon wants to give me $30 as a good will gesture, then I'm not going to turn it down. I just let them know that they don't have to if they don't want to.

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

My guess is that Amazon's offer has more to with recent market developments than fear of lawsuits (they are probably well covered through their contract with users and copyright laws). They believe that Sony and BN are about to seriously challenge their position in the US and such a generous offer will make Amazon look real good in the eyes of prospective buyers. Market economics and competition working for the users again. Enjoy the 30 bucks!

That is a mistake many people make...just because an EULA/Agreement/contract has a clause or terms in it does not make them legal or binding on the minor party. There are some pretty rigid laws about such things and it seems the larger the company the more they try and intimidate as well as flat out break those laws/regulations. They put in terms they know cannot be enforced because people simply are afraid to challenge.

This is especially true when one party in an agreement holds all the control and power. I've written and also agreed to many consulting agreements/contracts over the years and none of them are any more binding than the willingness of both parties to operate within the confines of the agreement.

And for these EULA's for physical goods, I do not believe any challenges have been made for what Amazon has done in this case. Like someone already mentioned, this is not done and also far from settled. Simply using the Whispernet is unlikely to grant Amazon access to remove or even monitor content on your device anymore than your ISP is allowed to invade your computers. This all might turn out good because it could create some well defined rules/laws/regulations for these devices.

But just don't make the mistake in assuming Amazon (or any similar company like, say, Sony) is in the right just because they have buildings full of lawyers and wrote an EULA that gives them all the power in the agreement...