E-book removal without consent?

[HarryT]

Well said, Prof. I completely agree with you.

[Dylan Tomorrow]

Originally Posted by Valentino

Hehe, Makes me chuckle.

I'd like to interject, you say Defective by design. I prefer to say GNU/Defective by design.

I love Richard Stallman and muh freedums. Defective by design used to be focused on Apple. It's good to see it getting in on Amazon's drm.

Richard Stallman is an embarrassment to the free and open source software movement and in my mind, has harmed its reputation more than he has helped it.

He is just as dogmatic about not using proprietary software as the Pope is about not using condoms.

I say that as someone who'd prefer it if DRM breaking became legal everywhere tomorrow (thus killing DRM) and someone who is using Linux as their sole operating system.

Stallman is just walking PR disaster, a walking caricature. I wish he'd just find another calling and stop making Linux users look like dogmatic fools.</Rant>

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Valentino

The first article was just a huge quote of the lady, I doubt that it was wrong. It favored her view. Facts are facts. You who probably didn't read it, believe what you want. It was obvious what happened...

The first article that anybody noticed as by Cory Doctorow. He has a habit of not being too diligent about checking his facts on stuff like this, but he was quoting (uncritically) the woman in question, yes. The facts in his post were mostly wrong, irrelevant, or badly misrepresented.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Ask the average person with an ereader about 1984 and I would put good money on the fact that they have no clue what happened. The knowledge that said event happened is highly correlated to how frequently you post on boards like this.

I was in the New York Times. Plenty of people heard about that particular incident.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by taustin

I was in the New York Times. Plenty of people heard about that particular incident.

And you think people read that article and retained that information how many years later?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

And you think people read that article and retained that information how many years later?

That's a moving goalpost from:

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

If the average person knew about the 1984 incident and thought it was a PR problem, the Kindle would not be the top selling ereader In the US. People would fear this type of thing happening and would buya Nook, Kobo, or Sony. So either. Amazon did a great PR job and people are not afraid or Amazon did a Great PR job and most people are clueless because it is a nonissue for the average user.

It hit the mainstream press at the time. People did know about it, it was a PR problem, and it had almost no effect at Kindle sales even in the short term. So, by your logic, people don't care, because the certainly knew.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by taustin

The first article that anybody noticed as by Cory Doctorow. He has a habit of not being too diligent about checking his facts on stuff like this, but he was quoting (uncritically) the woman in question, yes. The facts in his post were mostly wrong, irrelevant, or badly misrepresented.

Well, in this case he checked by talking with the woman and in the first article I saw by Doctorow he wrote that the reader was broken.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by taustin

That's a moving goalpost from:



It hit the mainstream press at the time. People did know about it, it was a PR problem, and it had almost no effect at Kindle sales even in the short term. So, by your logic, people don't care, because the certainly knew.

Your comment about bad PR has nothing to do with the original reporting of the mistake but how Amazon handled it. My comment was that the average ereader user who does not post on boards like this one has no idea that the event took place. Which means that Amazon handled it well enough that it is only discussed on sites like this one, where people are a bit obsessive on the topic. And even on sites like this one a fair number of people think it is not going to happen again because it was not well received and Amazon did have to do some serious damage control.

As to the reporting of the orginal incident I would guess that the average ereader user does not read the NY Times (or Wall Street Journal and other similar papers) and that even the ones who did might have missed that article. The Times, like all newspapers, has seen reader numbers dwindle for a long time now. Toss in people who have ereaders for "lighter" reading (romances, mysteries, paranormal vampire stuff and yes I read all three) who might be less inclined to read the Times every day and the people who are more conservative and don't read the Times because it is deemed to liberal and probably a few hundred other stereotypes and you are looking at a small percentage of the overall population that reads the Times and might have the oppertunity to see that particular article. The same can be said for other newspapers.

I have no idea where it was placed in the paper. I consider myself some one who keeps up with the news and I don't read the Times. I know that I learned about what happened on various bulletine boards and not through the newspaper. I do read other news sources but I tend to focus on papers outside of the US since I am more focused on international events and conflicts in my line of work. US reporting, even in the Times and similar papers, sucks so I don't bother with them.

Your argument that the fact that people still mention the 1984 mess on this board is an indication that it was really bad for Amazon does not hold water for me. You are basing that on the fact that the initial event was posted in the main stream press and that means that the vast majority of the public heard about it when it happened. To add to that, you are saying that the fact that it is still discussed on boards today means that it has had a lasting effect.

I am saying that the average ereader user has no clue it happened because they probably didn't read the original story, don't remember the original story all this time later, and do not post on boards were people are obsessive about ereaders and it is brought up as a topic of conversation. Amazon remains the dominant player in the ereader field in the US and a strong player throughout the globe, something that would be less likely if people thought that Amazon would take away their books. Which means people either don't know about the incident and are not worried or Amazon did a fine PR job cleaning up the mess and people are not worried.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, in this case he checked by talking with the woman and in the first article I saw by Doctorow he wrote that the reader was broken.

That was an update done after he'd started the hysterical whining.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Your comment about bad PR has nothing to do with the original reporting of the mistake but how Amazon handled it. My comment was that the average ereader user who does not post on boards like this one has no idea that the event took place.

Which just doesn't seem likely for something covered by the NYT. It wasn't an obscure event. It got mainstream press coverage.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by taustin

Which just doesn't seem likely for something covered by the NYT. It wasn't an obscure event. It got mainstream press coverage.

And how many people do you think now remember it, or would be influenced in their decision making by it?
What is the readership of the NYT anyway?
I find it completely plausible that an average consumer wouldn't be aware of a NYT article, and even more so that they wouldn't remember the contents of an article from several years ago.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by taustin

Which just doesn't seem likely for something covered by the NYT. It wasn't an obscure event. It got mainstream press coverage.

However unlikely it may seem to you, the only people I know that know about this having happened know about it from me. It may be that they heard about it when it happened, but we as a society tend to have the attention span of a gnat for anything which doesn't directly affect us. Since it happened a few years ago before e-readers were mainstream, not many people paid attention to it...therefore, to most people, it really wasan obscure event. What news stories do you remember from back then? Do you remember the HUGE corruption bust of politicians that happened? If you don't, you should...it was a pretty big deal, and changed the face and political future of at least one state, and maybe more. Can you name any of the politicians involved (off the top of your head...no fair using google).

My point is...just because something was in the New York Times 3 years ago doesn't mean that people remember it today.

Shari

Edit--I didn't see murraypaul's post before I hit submit...sorry.

[Billi]

If people would not remember it we would not have this thread.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by Billi

If people would not remember it we would not have this thread.

Which returns to the statement that the people on this board are not normal users. We are more aware of the history of e-readers and what has happened with them. We are not the normal user. So whenever someone claims that Amazon is evil and they froze their account or removed books and people get all upset.

And then there is the "Remember 1984" which was an incident that had nothing to do with TOS violations, it was a copyright matter that was poorly handled. And people complain about how evil Amazon is and what dmaage they could do.

And I sigh and point out that one giant screw does not make a pattern. It is a rare event. How many ebooks have been sold and how many books have been pulled from ereaeders? Yeah, that many. Wow remind me to be worried.

That the "victims" are never victims. I have yet to see a case where the "victim" hadn't ended up admitting to violating Amazons TOS or not really being locked out or having a broken Kindle or something along those lines. And, once gain, it is a rare event. How many of these do we hear about? How many people have Kindles and accounts that are never locked? Remind me to be worried.

Finally, every ereader with WiFi has the possibility of having books pulled from it by Amazon, BN, Kobo, Sony or whoever holds the books and pushes them to the device. And still with that there has been one event, with Orwell books, so, again, not worried.

I remove DRM from my books so I can move them to whatver device I want easily and to protect my investment if I decide to move from a Kindle to something else. I recommend the practice to those who are comfortable with it just to be on the safe side. I also keep bottled water and a stock of canned goods at my house just incase we lose power. And I keep a bag with warm clothes and some food and water in my car just incase I break down during the winter and need to wait for help. I don't expect the worst but I prepare myself just in case.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

And how many people do you think now remember it, or would be influenced in their decision making by it?

That's not a problem with Amazon, or DRM. That's a problem with "people are idiots," and if they're not idiots about Amazon or DRM, they'll be idiots about something else.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

What is the readership of the NYT anyway?

More than the readership here, or any other ebook forum. Or, probably, all ebook forums.

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I find it completely plausible that an average consumer wouldn't be aware of a NYT article, and even more so that they wouldn't remember the contents of an article from several years ago.

It made mainstream news well beyond NYT. It was the "big corporations are evil" hysterical nonsense of the week.