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

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by joshewah

... 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....

I believe you hit the problem on the head, with the "YOUR digital files." If you dropped your Kindle tomorrow, or if it crashed, "YOUR" digital files, for which you have paid real money, would just disappear. Which means that either (1) there should be no DRM, so you can back up YOUR files on your drive, or (2) Amazon is obligated to continue to provide you with access to YOUR files, or (3) the whole system is rotten and congress has to fix it.

As far as service: you pay a significant premium for the Kindle hardware, for the ability to use Wispernet and purchase from Amazon. In effect, you have pre-paid for this service. Amazon should either buy back the device from you, or continue to provide the service built in the price of the hardware.

Here are the relevant parts of Amazon's advertising the advantages of the Kindle:

"... Wireless: 3G wireless lets you download books right from your Kindle, anytime, anywhere; no monthly fees, service plans, or hunting for Wi-Fi hotspots

Books in Under 60 Seconds: Get books delivered in less than 60 seconds; no PC required
...
Large Selection: Over 260,000 books plus U.S. and international newspapers, magazines, and blogs available

Low Book Prices: New York Times Best Sellers and New Releases $9.99, unless marked otherwise..."

Moreover, as stated by Amazon on the same page (emphasis theirs):

"...At Amazon, we've always been obsessed with having every book ever printed, and we know that even the best reading device would be useless without a massive selection of books." (http://www.amazon.com/Kindle-Amazons...pf_rd_i=507846)

Just in case it's not clear to some, it is Amazon that states: "even the best reading device would be USELESS without a massive selection of books."

You can take this to Court

[Sendnot]

I saw this on Slashdot and read most of the comments here. I'm appalled at the behavior of Amazon towards an apparently loyal and long-term customer. If it were me, I'd be contacting consumerist and setting things straight, since Amazon seems to show no interest in doing so.

I've never bought anything from Amazon and now I never will. When the Kindle was first announced, I remember feeling wary, because of the DRM restrictions and because it seemed to be a somewhat closed system. Now I read that they can brick your Kindle, even when you've PAID for that content absolutely convinces me that I have no need now or in the future for this device.

My sis buys all kinds of stuff from Amazon. I'm going to forward the article to her... bet she finds a new provider.

[poohbear_nc]

I have been following this extended discussion - both here and on the Amazon discussion boards - especially the exchange as to whether Ian is a "real customer" or some sort of troll trying to stir up anti-Amazon emotions.

What I noticed is that "Ian" posted identically worded messages here and on the Amazon Kindle Discussion board - AFTER he had been allegedly banned from Amazon and had his account canceled. The funny thing about posting on the Amazon board is that you have to log in with a VALID existing account in good standing :

"Who can participate in discussions?

Customers! Anyone who has purchased items from Amazon.com and is in good standing in the Amazon.com community can reply to an existing discussion or start a new one. All visitors to Amazon.com can read any current discussion."

If he had been banned from Amazon and his account (as his initial post claimed) he would have been unable to post on Amazon and participate in the ensuing discussion.

http://www.amazon.com/tag/kindle/for...ype=tagsDetail

And, funnily enough, once he posted his "renistatement email" from Amazon he vanished from both forums. And never really answered the question: Just how much stuff did he return?

(I hope the link to the Amazon discussion board posts correctly - I'm relatively new at posting here)

[pwjone1]

Originally Posted by Harmon

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. ...

In re-reading the Amazon Kindle agreement, I think Amazon is probably on strong enough legal ground, they've pretty tightly limited the banned users' remedies, post termination/cancellation. Of course, it would have to be litigated, to be sure.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200144530

See the Disputes. section, where they bind the user to arbitration, excepting when they want to sue the user (and then in a court of their choice). Common enough approach these days, I suppose, I try not to get too caught up in the boilerplate, one sees these things on software licenses, etc., all too often. Not very customer friendly, makes you long for the old paper books 1-pager simple notice, usually saying copyrighted, don't make copy without our permission.



Now that the original Kindle user's ban is rescinded, I suppose the whole question is moot, but I wonder what an end user's rights are in terms of DRM, if they did happen to be banned (or Amazon went out of the eBook business)? There are some exemptions to DRM cracking, at least in the U.S.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital..._Copyright_Act

(see the section Anti-circumvention exemptions)

and I wonder if a banned user might be construed as falling into one of those exemptions. It was, after all, Amazon that in effect terminated the contract, so the contractual/license obligations and rights, both ways, might also be impinged, and although the Amazon agreement would seem to cover this area, in terms of limiting the user's remedies, there are aspects of the DMCA law exceptions that seem to overlap, perhaps even allow override of previous agreements, I suppose the intent being if that if a library had DRM works, and the DRM provider went out of business, they could still keep/archive/etc. the works.

I'm not a lawyer, the wording of the law is not too clear, and the case law is not obviously well enough established to clarify the interpretation of the various situations. But it would be pretty ironic, given Amazon's use of DMCA against mobileread, if the same law made it legal for a banned user to circumvent Amazon's DRM.

[krisk]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Perhaps English is not your first language?

1. A "period dress" refers to a style or fashion associated with a particular time; i.e. 19th century, not a garment worn during mensturation. (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.)

2. What she meant is pretty obvious to must people. She could have just said "dress" and meant the same thing. She was simply pointing out that it was a "period" dress appropriate for the apparent age and style of the photo. But the point was her avatar was wearing a dress, so she's a she.

3. Animals aren't sexless, so if you see a dog in men's clothes you can usually assume it's a male and a dog in a dress you can assume it's female. There is an underlying issue here that one cannot assume one's avatar is meant to be a reflection of one's RL self. But that again is part of the intended joke of this whole exchange; catsittingstill had no way of knowing if krisk was male or female, and krisk is suggesting humorously she was "obviously" female since her avatar is wearing a dress (and thus female).

what he said!

[astra]

Originally Posted by krisk

what he said!

I beg your pardon, Bitch.

[pshrynk]

Okay, folks, let's all step back and take a deep breath. Even in jest, the conversation is veering toward inappropriate.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by pwjone1

In re-reading the Amazon Kindle agreement, I think Amazon is probably on strong enough legal ground, they've pretty tightly limited the banned users' remedies, post termination/cancellation. Of course, it would have to be litigated, to be sure....

Keep it a little real, though.

Amazon could have inserted in there, that they will take your house and bind you into slavery, if you lose the arbitration, and still 99.999% of purchasers would click "Accept." Because only really, really weird people read these lengthy agreements, before they buy a $400 product

What people do read, though, is the advertised description of the product, with all the wonderful promises made, like: "... Wireless: 3G wireless lets you download books right from your Kindle, anytime, anywhere; no monthly fees, service plans, or hunting for Wi-Fi hotspots...." See the text in blue in post #316 above.

Then Amazon even goes on to tell us, that your Kindle would be USELESS, without access to a "massive selection of books."

[krisk]

Originally Posted by astra

I beg your pardon, Bitch.

woof I 'spose

[Rayon Fog]

Originally Posted by thibaulthalpern

Are you going to Amazon as a first choice out of loyalty or because they offer the lowest price? The word choice here makes a big difference.

Loyalty suggests obligation and faithfulness to a company, and this would occur even if another company offers lower price.

--snip---

Do you feel obligated to purchase from Amazon when you need to buy something, because you "have" a relationship to the company?

I think you're conflating "loyalty" and "obligation". Someone's loyalty to something, in this case a company, does not in any way suggest that this person has an obligation, real or perceived, to patronize that company. Loyalty in no way suggests obligation.

I'm loyal to Amazon because they've almost always done right by me in the past and their return policy, at least up until a few months ago, was fair. It wasn't necessarily because they had the best prices - they often don't - but it's one of those online companies that I know are safe. How that loyalty means I'm somehow obligated to them (or have some sense of obligation to them) is beyond me.

[pboss]

The way Amazon watches over its baby is just pathetic.

[netseeker]

Today the german news-site golem.de published an article about Ians story. Golem.de is well known in the german-speaking area and hopefully a lot of amazon customers will read the article.

[Revisorius]

Originally Posted by mjh215

Something I'm rather amazed by in this thread is the heated posts assuming they know Ian's full story.

-MJ

If you think that's amazing, check out the rash of sites that decided to jump on this story a week after it was resolved without an ounce of journalistic integrity. Ironically, this thread is more fair and balanced.

[catsittingstill]

Originally Posted by markm

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.

(blink) Hmm. Maybe I bought the wrong e-book reader. You know of an e-book reader that is not large, or fragile, or complex and that works without batteries or the internet?

I'm interested. Tell me more. Especially the part about how it works without batteries.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

I'm interested. Tell me more. Especially the part about how it works without batteries.

I assume he is talking about the 100s of years old device known as the book.

BOb