When you are locked out of your $1000 worth Amazon library.

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

Very much so.

And admittedly, my opinion is somewhat tainted by spending nearly an hour yesterday on the receiving end of a rant about how my company has no right to make additional security checks before charging a credit card for nearly $2,000 and shipping it to an address the issuing credit card company had never heard of...

Oh yeah! I've done customer service, and I totally know where you're coming from. People don't seem to understand that the person they reach on the phone is not responsible for these sorts of decisions. They're made higher up. And in the case of good, but modestly inconvenient decisions like the one you mention, they also don't understand that this modest inconvenience is really there to protect them.

In the case of bad decisions, the customer service rep is the last person in the company to hear about it. This is why I have near endless patience with customer service - it's really not their fault, and in some cases they might not even have been told about an issue or decision.

As much as that sucks, and as much as it can hurt the customer service experience for the end-user, complaints should be lobbied at the higher-ups, not the person on the phone.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

And in the case of good, but modestly inconvenient decisions like the one you mention, they also don't understand that this modest inconvenience is really there to protect them.

Last I checked, my company's policy is that we would rather inconvenience our honest customers, than allow a fraudulent order to go through because we weren't thorough enough. I've been hit with that kind of mentality when ordering from other companies online, and never had a problem with it, but this particular person really wasn't in the mood to be reasonable.

But that's why we have an escalation path. "Of course, sir. Let me put you on hold for a moment, and I'll get a manager on the line for you."

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by rhadin

What could possibly be so "very, very bad" regarding ebooks as to warrant denial of access to already purchased and paid for ebooks? My imaginaion simply cannot come up with such a scenario.

Why does it have something to do with ebooks? This person could have doing all sorts of shenanigans with their account. They got it locked, and their ebooks were collateral damage.

Every story has two sides, and I'm not buying this one.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

Why does it have something to do with ebooks? This person could have doing all sorts of shenanigans with their account. They got it locked, and their ebooks were collateral damage.

Precisely. We know, for example, that Amazon will lock the accounts of people who abuse Amazon's generous returns policy by persistently buying and returning high-value items.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I can guarantee you that there is more to this story than what was relayed in the story.

And your evidence is...?

Guarantee is a pretty big word.

[Torwan]

This should be a lesson to everything who's high on the entire cloud-hype. Once the server or service shuts down, you don't have anything anymore and your best tablet or other thin client device is worth nothing. I always have my vital electronic content stored on at least two locations. With Kindle-content, when you copy everything, you can even store all metadata, like the collections and where you last were in the book.

Backup, Backup, Backup...

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. We know, for example, that Amazon will lock the accounts of people who abuse Amazon's generous returns policy by persistently buying and returning high-value items.

That may be, Harry, but if that is the basis for Amazon's not allowing access to items bought and paid for, I'd consider that theft on Amazon's part. Amazon doesn't have to allow the abuser to buy more goods, but does have to either refund the purchase money or allow access to the purchased and paid-for goods.

Doesn't matter the reason why Amazon no longer wants to deal with the customer -- Amazon certainly has a right to not sell goods to someone who violates its policies or abuses them -- but that does not give Amazon the right to block access to already bought and paid-for items.

I don't shop at Amazon so I'm not familiar with its terms, so I ask: Does Amazon state anywhere that returning more than x number of items within y period of time will cause Amazon to lock the customer's account? Or is this just at Amazon's whim -- that is, I buy and return 3 high-value items and they lock my account but they don't lock your account after you have bought and returned 5 similar high-value items?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rhadin

That may be, Harry, but if that is the basis for Amazon's not allowing access to items bought and paid for, I'd consider that theft on Amazon's part. Amazon doesn't have to allow the abuser to buy more goods, but does have to either refund the purchase money or allow access to the purchased and paid-for goods.

Doesn't matter the reason why Amazon no longer wants to deal with the customer -- Amazon certainly has a right to not sell goods to someone who violates its policies or abuses them -- but that does not give Amazon the right to block access to already bought and paid-for items.

Actually, I agree with you, but that is what Amazon do, nonetheless. Given that they employ whole armies of lawyers, I would imagine that it is legal.

I think you have to be a pretty serious abuser for this to happen. IIRC, the person who came on MR a while ago and moaned about it had bought and returned something like 3 large-screen TVs and 6 digital SLRs in the preceding few months.

[CyGuy]

I consider this issue his own fault. He should have removed the DRM infection the very instant he purchased each book, and immediately made a backup of the file. What an expensive lesson to learn, bet he won’t make the same mistake again!

[carld]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

And your evidence is...?

Common sense and a glaring lack of detail.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

I consider this issue his own fault. He should have removed the DRM infection the very instant he purchased each book, and immediately made a backup of the file. What an expensive lesson to learn, bet he won’t make the same mistake again!

DRM he may not have been aware of, see my previous post on that for further details.

[pwalker8]

I would point out that technically, Amazon isn't denying the person access to items bought and paid for. What they are denying him is continued the ability to use the Amazon servers for backup. I would assume that when he first purchased the books in question they were delivered to his kindle. One can easily back up the books on their computer. Plus Amazon gives one the ability to download books after purchase. If he didn't do any of the above, is that Amazon's fault?

Color me skeptical as well. In general, every other time I've heard of someone being locked out of Amazon, then it eventual comes out they have been abusing the system with either excessive returns or other such things.

Originally Posted by rhadin

That may be, Harry, but if that is the basis for Amazon's not allowing access to items bought and paid for, I'd consider that theft on Amazon's part. Amazon doesn't have to allow the abuser to buy more goods, but does have to either refund the purchase money or allow access to the purchased and paid-for goods.

Doesn't matter the reason why Amazon no longer wants to deal with the customer -- Amazon certainly has a right to not sell goods to someone who violates its policies or abuses them -- but that does not give Amazon the right to block access to already bought and paid-for items.

I don't shop at Amazon so I'm not familiar with its terms, so I ask: Does Amazon state anywhere that returning more than x number of items within y period of time will cause Amazon to lock the customer's account? Or is this just at Amazon's whim -- that is, I buy and return 3 high-value items and they lock my account but they don't lock your account after you have bought and returned 5 similar high-value items?

[JoeD]

pwalker8: Amazon push the idea of been able to keep books in your archive and not having to keep everything on your device. That said, if they'd provided him access to download the entirety of his purchases one last time it'd be less of an issue, but ONLY because he'd then be able to remove the drm to allow usage of the books on future devices.

If he was unable to remove the DRM then amazon would in effect be cutting him off from the books, since the moment the current device breaks he'd have no way to put those books on a new device, as the DRM is per device and requires a new download of the book to each specific device.

[Barbara1955]

Removing DRM is NOT easy! Esp for us Non-Techy it down right Impossible!

[Kevin8or]

My guess is most e-reader users don't know it exists. They might even think they're exercising savvy foresight by backing up their e-books (with DRM intact) on their computer.