Amazon has banned my account - my Kindle is now a (partial) brick.

[PGP_Protector]

Originally Posted by Damætas

lisreed, wow!

Note to self: Make no returns to Amazon.com.

More like don't buy anything from Amazon.com

[mcramer]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

(Quick side-note: the word "period" with reference to menstruation is *rarely* used during casual conversation, so unless it's obviously a direct reference in context, you can usually assume it means something else.)

In the US maybe. In British English speaking areas the word period is used mainly to signify the time that a woman is menstruating. And in my circle of friends is used without stigma in casual conversation. In case of grammar a "." is a full stop.

Pedantic I know but I've know of enough young boys that giggle when listening to a US TV program when the say, for example, "that's it - period"

[markm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The story that Amazon flagged an account, and that when the customer politely queried it, they reinstated it? Bit of a "non-story" when it comes down to it, isn't it, and simply shows that Amazon have some kind of automated system for detecting "scammers", which one would expect any large retailer to have.

We apparently sit on different sides of the fence, as much as different sides of the Atlantic. Personally, I think that the Kindle (as much as the Sony) is a rich-kids gizmo rather than something of any practical value. It is large, fragile, complex, useless without batteries or Internet, far overpriced, and when used as intended, more expensive and inflexible per publication than the books it strives to replace. That said, having known many Macintosh owners, I completely understand why you're such an Amazon apologist.

E-book readers have the potential to be so much more than they are today. But publishers and self-proclaimed authors' guilds will never allow that to happen. Just imagine if I could slide my library card into the side of my e-book reader and borrow (for free) or rent (for a few cents) a copy of any book ever published. That is a product I'd pay $400 for. Not some proprietary interface to overpriced, DRM-laden temporary copies of books I can never sell or even loan to another person, or take hiking in the woods, or camping in the desert, or sunbathing on the beach.

But I digress. On the matter of Amazon itself I believe that, as a customer paying good money for a supposedly serviceable product, I reserve the right to determine if that product satisfactorily meets its description and specifications upon receipt of the actual physical item, and if not, to either exchange it for one that is satisfactory or return it for a refund.

In a brick-and-mortar system, I can inspect and test a product before I pay and leave the store. In an e-commerce environment, my inspection and testing cannot occur until after I've paid and the item is received. But in either event, how can it be legal or moral for me to be penalized for returning something I find is unacceptable by comparison to its advertised description or specifications, or by comparison to like units of its type?

Are my rights as a participant in a retail exchange not the same just because I chose e-commerce versus brick-and-mortar? Does the concept of Quid Pro Quo not apply? Is Amazon really big enough to redefine the terms of a retail purchase?

What do you think the Federal Trade Commission would say about this? Or better yet, a good class-action law firm?

[WilliamG]

Now on engadget! Can't copy and paste link since I'm on my iPhone and no such feature till June!

[johns]

This whole story is a great example of the issues with e-book DRM, and why it gives individual corporations far too much power over something very fundamental to our society -- the freedom to read and share what we learn and enjoy with others. To get this message across to Amazon, DefectiveByDesign.org is sending Jeff Bezos some peach baby food -- read the explanation at http://www.defectivebydesign.org/imp...kindle-swindle.

[rocket733]

Originally Posted by markm

We apparently sit on different sides of the fence, as much as different sides of the Atlantic. Personally, I think that the Kindle (as much as the Sony) is a rich-kids gizmo rather than something of any practical value. It is large, fragile, complex, useless without batteries or Internet, far overpriced, and when used as intended, more expensive and inflexible per publication than the books it strives to replace. That said, having known many Macintosh owners, I completely understand why you're such an Amazon apologist.

E-book readers have the potential to be so much more than they are today. But publishers and self-proclaimed authors' guilds will never allow that to happen. Just imagine if I could slide my library card into the side of my e-book reader and borrow (for free) or rent (for a few cents) a copy of any book ever published. That is a product I'd pay $400 for. Not some proprietary interface to overpriced, DRM-laden temporary copies of books I can never sell or even loan to another person, or take hiking in the woods, or camping in the desert, or sunbathing on the beach.

But I digress. On the matter of Amazon itself I believe that, as a customer paying good money for a supposedly serviceable product, I reserve the right to determine if that product satisfactorily meets its description and specifications upon receipt of the actual physical item, and if not, to either exchange it for one that is satisfactory or return it for a refund.

In a brick-and-mortar system, I can inspect and test a product before I pay and leave the store. In an e-commerce environment, my inspection and testing cannot occur until after I've paid and the item is received. But in either event, how can it be legal or moral for me to be penalized for returning something I find is unacceptable by comparison to its advertised description or specifications, or by comparison to like units of its type?

Are my rights as a participant in a retail exchange not the same just because I chose e-commerce versus brick-and-mortar? Does the concept of Quid Pro Quo not apply? Is Amazon really big enough to redefine the terms of a retail purchase?

What do you think the Federal Trade Commission would say about this? Or better yet, a good class-action law firm?

They'd say the same thing the judge would say. You have no just cause. Ian's rights as a customer were not infringed, he was provided with the products and subsequent returns that he requested. Amazon provided books and services under the terms of conditions that were agreed upon at the time of the sale under contract law. When Amazon chose not to continue to do business with him in the future they simply chose to exercise their rights. Brick and Mortar stores can do the same thing. Business don't exist to make customers feel warm and fuzzy inside, they exist to make money. When you have customers that are an expense rather than a revenue the logical thing to do is get rid of them.

You wouldn't work for an employer who makes working for them more expensive than the salary you are paid so why should you expect the opposite?

[PGP_Protector]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Don't you think that's just a touch of paranoia? Do you really think that there's any comparison between returning multiple "big ticket" TV sets and returning a Kindle book?

I've no idea, lets check their policy.

Oh right, they don't have a published policy to check.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kacir

EDIT:
We have also been Engadeted ;-)

That is one seriously creepy photo of Jeff Bezos.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by rocket733

... Ian's rights as a customer were not infringed, he was provided with the products and subsequent returns that he requested. Amazon provided books and services under the terms of conditions that were agreed upon at the time of the sale under contract law. When Amazon chose not to continue to do business with him in the future they simply chose to exercise their rights....

Huh?!! That's just silly.

An important reason, advertised by Amazon, for purchasing a Kindle, rather than a cheaper alternative device, is access to Amazon-provided content through Wispernet.

Your argument is kind of like of a store selling you a TV, then disabling cable/OTA reception on your TV, because you had a dispute with them about the shoes you bought there subsequently.

And when you complain about lost reception functionality, they tell you that it was implied in the small print on page 136 of their contract. Plus, you can still plug in a VCR into the TV, so it's still deemed functional....

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by rocket733

Business don't exist to make customers feel warm and fuzzy inside, they exist to make money. When you have customers that are an expense rather than a revenue the logical thing to do is get rid of them.

A pure business decision would have been to limit the business with the customer to Kindle-eBooks and all other kind of goods the customer had not returned in past. A pure business decision would turn the past expense into a future revenue. I guess they just can't do that for technical reasons...and i guess their cs reps also had technical reasons when they told Ian to return the defective goods. So basically they ban a customer for technical reasons and not for business reasons.

[Patricia]

The previous post was deleted and the user banned for using offensive language and generally being a troll.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by rocket733

They'd say the same thing the judge would say. You have no just cause. Ian's rights as a customer were not infringed, he was provided with the products and subsequent returns that he requested. Amazon provided books and services under the terms of conditions that were agreed upon at the time of the sale under contract law. When Amazon chose not to continue to do business with him in the future they simply chose to exercise their rights. Brick and Mortar stores can do the same thing. Business don't exist to make customers feel warm and fuzzy inside, they exist to make money. When you have customers that are an expense rather than a revenue the logical thing to do is get rid of them.

You wouldn't work for an employer who makes working for them more expensive than the salary you are paid so why should you expect the opposite?

I think you are largely correct, but when it comes to the semi-bricking of the Kindle, I expect that Amazon is on shaky legal ground. It is one thing for them to refuse to continue to do business with a customer who has returned too many items, but it is entirely another to expand that unwillingness to the point of refusing to provide access to ebooks which the customer has already bought. In fact, I suspect that in that regard, it might be Amazon which has violated the contract.

There is a concept in law known as a "contract of adhesion" which gives courts the authority to disregard contractual agreements where one party has the bargaining position to simply impose conditions on the other, and uses that bargaining position to write an unfair contract. That's what Amazon does, and the main reason they get away with it is that nobody has the time and money to take them to court over such relatively small amounts.

But the practicality of the situation is that anyone who does business with Amazon does it at their peril. I certainly have changed my buying habits. I'm a lot more careful about what I buy from Amazon these days. I don't buy anything that has any serious risk of not being what I hope to get. And I don't buy anything that I can get from some other provider at a similar price.

[joshewah]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Huh?!! That's just silly.

An important reason, advertised by Amazon, for purchasing a Kindle, rather than a cheaper alternative device, is access to Amazon-provided content through Wispernet.

Your argument is kind of like of a store selling you a TV, then disabling cable/OTA reception on your TV, because you had a dispute with them about the shoes you bought there subsequently.

And when you complain about lost reception functionality, they tell you that it was implied in the small print on page 136 of their contract. Plus, you can still plug in a VCR into the TV, so it's still deemed functional....

Stores don't provide cable tv service. A service provider isn't legally required to give someone service. Amazon suspends an account, you cant use their digital services. They don't ask for items you purchased back, but they aren't going to let you continue to go into their website and download your digital files or use their free internet.

Sure the account may have been flagged and suspended unfairly, but thats the issue you have to take up. Being locked out of Kindle services is a side affect. So maybe Amazon has to clean up their policy on refunds, or have a better method of flagging accounts for suspension. It wouldn't make sense to give suspended accounts continued access to Kindle services. The books on the device already don't get locked out do they? You just cant go and freely use their bandwidth which they pay for without being an active customer.
Do people want Amazon to switch to a subscription based service not tied to the Amazon account or something? I personally wouldn't like that at all.

[onealpha]

Ok, I don't own a kindle and have no plans on buying one. I have bought a lot of books and other items from Amazon.com over the years. I will no longer purchase from them unless there is no other alternative. Why? Just read the emails that Amazon sent to this guy and others. Regardless of the justification, they were crazy. No warning, no arbitration, no review by a real person, just a form letter and no way to discuss the matter with a human. I am sorry, but this is terrible customer service. I recently purchased an item from them and did not bother to read the return policy. I was in a hurry and thought that since I was buying from Amazon that it would be fair. Well, it turns out the company selling it was not Amazon and this company had a 25% restocking fee, so I am stuck with a bad product. Even when I went to their site to find the terms of sale and return for the product it was not that easy to find. Yes, it was my fault but I felt misled and will spend my money elsewhere whenever possible. This just cemented it for me. I mean seriously, just read the first email and imagine recieving it out of the blue in your inbox. The follow-ups were just harsh and insulting. Had they not restored his account I would be a little skepticle as to how bad his account looked but they would not have restored his account if they had firm ground to stand on.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by mcramer

In the US maybe. In British English speaking areas the word period is used mainly to signify the time that a woman is menstruating. And in my circle of friends is used without stigma in casual conversation. In case of grammar a "." is a full stop.

Pedantic I know but I've know of enough young boys that giggle when listening to a US TV program when the say, for example, "that's it - period"

Good point; I forgot about "full stop". So that could explain a lot of the confusion! Yes, in the UK you'd hear "period" a lot more. But a "period dress" means the same thing in the UK as the US in any case.