Makes me glad my reader is not connected

[Alfy]

I find it amazing that some would defend Amazon's decision based on the fact the books were illegal copies. IT DOES NOT MATTER! Amazon would have been 100% right to contact the customers and tell them the book has to be "returned" (how that would have panned out practically, I have no idea!). It certainly had no right whatsoever to delete the books without ensuring the customers had agreed to it. And you'd have to be pretty naive if you think any of the purchasers could have been taken to a court of law for having an illegal copy on their Kindles...

[HansTWN]

1.)Yes, nobody would have been taken to court, because of the low value. Just because you won't get sued, doesn't make it right. Besides, it is still possible that the publishers would pick one buyer of the illegal books and go after him to scare off the rest.
2.)Let us say that Amazon informed the users. What about the user who says "I will remove the illegal copies", but then next time Amazon sees that the files are still on the device? What should happen now?

[krischik]

Originally Posted by Alfy

Amazon would have been 100% right to contact the customers and tell them the book has to be "returned" (how that would have panned out practically, I have no idea!).

Dear customer

The book 1984 was sold illegally by our content partner XXX. We regretfully have to ask you to return the book. We will refund the amount payed.

Please make a copy of your annotations as as the book will be taken off your Kindle when next connected.

Amazon

Note that I am German - I am sure an native English marketing guy can whip up something nicer.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

They also did not "break into" anyone's home to do this. When you buy the Kindle, you've already given them access to the device. They update the firmware, add or remove features, push content to your device, and remove content already (e.g. expired newspapers).

I wonder how does this apply for people who bought the Kindle second had, I'm sure they didn't "accept" any agreement when buying. Did they have to do it when activating the Kindle account or something?

[wayspooled]

A little sideways and revealing perspective on all this.

From Tech Republic: IT News

"Amazon.com is not a stupid company, nor is it naive.

CEO Jeff Bezos knows that the biggest hurdle e-book readers face are DRM schemes and copyright regimes that differ from country to country.

So in letting Americans download copies of 1984 that were outside the local regime to their Kindles, then having them erased remotely, Amazon created a highly-publicized cause celebre that may finally bring reform.

Sure, Amazon was within its rights. Rights are not the issue here.

Right and wrong is the issue.

We all know that, in the global world of the Internet, a national law is a local ordinance. These ordinances are often complex, contradictory, and exist solely to protect local monopolies.

In this case the monopoly is copyright, which extends practically to infinity in the U.S., thanks to the Walt Disney Co., but is held to a reasonable length in other countries.

It’s America’s penchant of giving corporations greater rights than individuals which is at issue here, and 1984, as a book, is a great place to make that point. Author George Orwell also wrote Animal Farm, whose best-known line, “some pigs are more equal than others,” applies superbly to the case.

If the intent of copyright is to create an incentive for people to create, why should that incentive last 75 years past the life of the creator? There is no reason, except for the fact that corporations now hold copyright in the U.S., and corporations are immortal because when they die they pass their assets on to other companies.

Amazon knows that uniform rules are in everyone’s interest, especially Amazon’s. By enabling this outrage, creating this outrage, then apologizing for this outrage, and promising not to repeat it, Amazon puts pressure on both publishers and governments worldwide to create a reasonable, global copyright regime, so ebooks and books operate under identical principles.

It was definitely the computer industry play of the week."

Full article -
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4518&tag=nl.e019

Originally Posted by wayspooled

A little sideways and revealing perspective on all this.

From Tech Republic: IT News

"Amazon.com is not a stupid company, nor is it naive.

CEO Jeff Bezos knows that the biggest hurdle e-book readers face are DRM schemes and copyright regimes that differ from country to country.

So in letting Americans download copies of 1984 that were outside the local regime to their Kindles, then having them erased remotely, Amazon created a highly-publicized cause celebre that may finally bring reform.

Sure, Amazon was within its rights. Rights are not the issue here.

Right and wrong is the issue.

We all know that, in the global world of the Internet, a national law is a local ordinance. These ordinances are often complex, contradictory, and exist solely to protect local monopolies.

In this case the monopoly is copyright, which extends practically to infinity in the U.S., thanks to the Walt Disney Co., but is held to a reasonable length in other countries.

It’s America’s penchant of giving corporations greater rights than individuals which is at issue here, and 1984, as a book, is a great place to make that point. Author George Orwell also wrote Animal Farm, whose best-known line, “some pigs are more equal than others,” applies superbly to the case.

If the intent of copyright is to create an incentive for people to create, why should that incentive last 75 years past the life of the creator? There is no reason, except for the fact that corporations now hold copyright in the U.S., and corporations are immortal because when they die they pass their assets on to other companies.

Amazon knows that uniform rules are in everyone’s interest, especially Amazon’s. By enabling this outrage, creating this outrage, then apologizing for this outrage, and promising not to repeat it, Amazon puts pressure on both publishers and governments worldwide to create a reasonable, global copyright regime, so ebooks and books operate under identical principles.

It was definitely the computer industry play of the week."

Full article -
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4518&tag=nl.e019

An imaginative theory but I highly doubt Amazon initiated this to bring about reform at the cost of what may be significant Kindle sales.

Also I have yet to see a public apology on this (which would probably be necessary to placate future, potential Kindle buyers) except that it has been reported in a couple of articles that Amazon has said it will refrain from removing books in similar situations. But this sounds conditional to me as if Amazon is reserving the right to do so in other situations.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

2.)Let us say that Amazon informed the users. What about the user who says "I will remove the illegal copies", but then next time Amazon sees that the files are still on the device? What should happen now?

Actually, this part bothers me and is a big reason for me to never buy a Kindle. I think nobody has a right to look on my data-storage device, be it my computer, PDA or ereader. Either, you have to sign an agreement that Amazon is allowed to do that (I can't buy the Kindle, so I don't know if that's the case or not) or Amazon is out of line by looking on my device.

If it was the first case, I'd return the device immediately. If it's the second, Amazon was breaking (at least in my country) the law (punishable by jail-time or fine).

Originally Posted by wayspooled

A little sideways and revealing perspective on all this.

From Tech Republic: IT News

<snip>

Full article -
http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/?p=4518&tag=nl.e019

They do have a point there...

On a side note, you can make use of those holes too... A Dutch shop will host its ebook server outside the EU to circumvent the high VAT rate (normal pbooks have the low VAT rate, ebooks the high one)...

Edit:

Did some reading:
Information Received. The Device Software will provide Amazon with data about your Device and its interaction with the Service (such as available memory, up-time, log files and signal strength) and information related to the content on your Device and your use of it (such as automatic bookmarking of the last page read and content deletions from the Device). Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are backed up through the Service. Information we receive is subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice.

A very good reason to not buy a Kindle, ever. I think they should load up 1984 when you buy the device...

[ahi]

Originally Posted by carld

But it is doable, and there's no backing out of that (which is why Amazon's apparently new policy confuses me). In-fact for all the kerfuffle about this, the Kindle is designed for the non-computer literate, which means as much as can be done automatically without user intervention should be done. So we get automatic downloads, updates and deletions, it's in the very nature of the device.

Further, if Amazon knows they sold me something they didn't have the right to, though actually the illegitimate publisher did, then they have an obligation to rectify the situation, that includes removing the offending content.

Carl

Which is why I wrote:

It's wrong and should be illegal for Amazon to make it possible for itself to remove content (illegal or otherwise) from your device.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Alfy

And you'd have to be pretty naive if you think any of the purchasers could have been taken to a court of law for having an illegal copy on their Kindles...

Especially since they weren't illegal. The purchasers broke no law.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by ahi

It's wrong and should be illegal for Amazon to make it possible for itself to remove content (illegal or otherwise) from your device.- Ahi

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Did some reading:
Information Received. The Device Software will provide Amazon with data about your Device and its interaction with the Service (such as available memory, up-time, log files and signal strength) and information related to the content on your Device and your use of it (such as automatic bookmarking of the last page read and content deletions from the Device). Annotations, bookmarks, notes, highlights, or similar markings you make in your Device are backed up through the Service. Information we receive is subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice.

As you can see, they made sure they were allowed to do that. By buying the Kindle, people agreed that Amazon could delete stuff from their Kindle

[slayda]

Actually the Kindle 1 (purchased on ebay for a good price) does have some very good and valid uses (sans Whispernet - I've taped the Whispernet switch to the "off" position). It is good for proff reading my scanned & OCRed writings because it has the ability to highlight sections while I'm proof reading. This makes it much easier to find thaose errors for correction in my word processor.

Also it is quite easy to DL Amazon books (usually only the free ones mentioned here on MR) that I want, to my computer and transfer them to the Kindle.

So I am enjoying my Kindle 1 but most of my reading is on my EZ Reader. Only proof reading on my Kindle 1.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

As you can see, they made sure they were allowed to do that. By buying the Kindle, people agreed that Amazon could delete stuff from their Kindle

Let me try to be clearer still:

I think it should be illegal--by national/federal law--for a device maker to construct their device in a way to facilitate the monitoring or deleting of content without explicit consent by the user on a case by case basis.

The fact that it isn't doesn't make the issue irrelevant. Amazon's slimy fore-planning is the root cause of the problems.

- Ahi

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

As you can see, they made sure they were allowed to do that. By buying the Kindle, people agreed that Amazon could delete stuff from their Kindle

As has been mentioned numerous times in other threads about this, just because a company states something in their usage agreement does not mean that it is legal. A company can not make customers sign away their legal rights in a contract. Any such clauses are invalid.

IF it is illegal for Amazon to delete eBooks that their customers own, then it is still illegal whether or not there is a term in the contract.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

I think it should be illegal--by national/federal law--for a device maker to construct their device in a way to facilitate the monitoring or deleting of content without explicit consent by the user on a case by case basis.

Are we positive it's not? I can see them getting away with monitoring via a term in the contract (authorized access), Microsoft basically does the same thing with their automatic updates and WGA, but not deleting. I would expect that if Microsoft went in and started deleting user owned content, they would get nailed for it.

[Kali Yuga]

I don't recall the specific procedure from purchasing my Kindle, but I'd be surprised if there wasn't a click-through agreement at some point in the process -- most likely at purchase, since it was already tied to my account by the time it was shipped.

I see no indication that this dust-up will lead to any sort of copyright reform.

I also see no particular reason why this action would be illegal. Unwanted yes, undesirable yes, but illegal? What's the statute? Remember, this is not an organization with no right to access your e-reader; you've already granted them access in the TOS. You are also not purchasing tangible property, you're licensing content.

For example, a shareware application has the legal right to time out and render itself completely inoperable -- not much different than a deletion. MMORPG's can wipe out virtual objects that are "owned" by your character, or even delete your character altogether for any reason they see fit. I've seen Microsoft server products that, if used in a way that just implies that you're not using it within the scope of the license, will actually shut down the entire server in 30 minutes. (You can't move certain FSMO roles off of an SBS server, in case you're curious. )

Supremely annoying? Yes. Potentially causes huge problems for a business? Yes. Ruined my day? Definitely. Illegal? Well....

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I think nobody has a right to look on my data-storage device, be it my computer, PDA or ereader. Either, you have to sign an agreement that Amazon is allowed to do that (I can't buy the Kindle, so I don't know if that's the case or not) or Amazon is out of line by looking on my device.

You, uh, might want to stop using a Google or Yahoo or Hotmail account, and block all advertising software, and delete cookies every single day, oh yeah and stop posting on web forums (as they record your IP address with every post and/or login), and obviously don't play any online games. Or move out of the US, since the NSA has already shown a penchant for snooping on massive amounts of Internet traffic. Or just shut down your computer.

More to the point, it's not that Amazon is reaching out with its digital tentacles and snooping on your device. By design, purchases through the Kindle store are recorded in a database; this is what allows you to synchronize books, notes, and last page read across multiple devices. I.e. you can read a book on your Kindle and your iPhone and always pick up exactly where you left off, with all your notes and bookmarks.

Seriously, if you don't think your online purchases or other online behavior are eminently trackable, you're fooling yourself. Buy an e-book from any online vendor, and that purchase will stay in their database for as long as it exists.

I can understand how you dislike this, but it will be increasingly difficult to avoid in the future. It's already almost impossible to avoid getting tracked already. Feel free to be mad, but don't be naïve....