Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Outlawed by Amazon DRM

bekkelund.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 494 posts

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#251

Post by aidenn0 »

gambiting wrote: post #205
vijayr wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that Kindle users probably did give explicit permission (for some definition of explicit permission). This is probably the case. Amazon would've covered their bases strongly. What is super annoying is this - there are many many books, whose kindle editions cost more than their paperbacks. Imagine paying 13$ for a ebook (the same book in paperback costs 10$) and then losing that due to some arbitrary "r…

And there are many many books which are a lot cheaper on Kindle. I buy my programming and technical books almost exclusively on Kindle,since the difference is usually half the price of paperbacks.

FYI there is a calibre plugin that will strip the DRM from kindle books. I use it to read books on my Sony e-reader.

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#252

Post by chanux »

I e-mailed amazon using a feedback form[1]. following is what I wrote. I appreciate if other kindle owners can do the same to help Linn and for the greater good.

Dear Amazon,

Your service was really nice to me so far. But I happened to read a news that was not comforting. Following is a link to the story. http://www.bekkelund.net/2012/10/22/outlawed-by-amazon-drm/

This makes me hesitant about making any future purchases. I understand your right to act against any abuse but I also believe that users have a right know what was really going on, especially when they are being totally banished.

This email is to direct your attention towards the problem so you can have another chance of finishing things in a nicer way. I strongly believe DRM sucks but I also believe there are valid reasons for it to be there. The problem is not black or white. I'd like to see a solution that is acceptable for both parties (Amazon and the customer).

Thank you

[1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/contact-us/kindle-help.html/r...

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#253

Post by fluidcruft »

rmc wrote: post #143
tomp wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in europe. Here, it's fair use.

IANAL Fair use usually applies to copying the work or publishing it, or making a dervied work from it (y'know all the thing that the copyright holder usually only has legal rights to do). Merely transforming the work yourself and keeping it yourself, wouldn't really count as anything that copyright law has any say over. Since it's not explicitly illegal, it's legal. You don't need 'fair use rights' when you tear up a…

> You don't need 'fair use rights' when you tear up a book in frustration, or your kid scribbles on it.

Wasn't there a big battle lost in Utah by a store where you could take "your" purchased DVDs/VHS and the store would modify/edit them (to improve family friendliness -- also often included removing gay-tolerant elements)? As I recall the directors weren't happy, sued and won.

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#254

Post by Evbn »

joshnerius wrote: post #190
cs702 wrote: post #152

Could you ever imagine a local retailer in your area breaking and entering into your home, taking away all your books, and then not giving you a straightforward explanation as to why they did so? Me neither. Breaking and entering into someone else's physical property, and talking away their physical possessions without explanation is so obviously wrong and illegal! Yet that's pretty much what Amazon did to this poor…

I've often wondered about the viability of students purchasing or renting textbooks for the Kindle. Just imagine the panic/terror that would ensue if a student's collection of textbooks just disappeared in the middle of a semester. If my collection of novels disappears, I'm inconvenienced. If my collection of textbooks disappears, my academic progress is severely jeopardized. Both seem extremely wrong as you mention,…

This is the thesis of RMS's The Right to Read, written over 30 years ago, and one of the few works to have passed from the genre of science fiction to historical fact, by remaining unchanged while the world changed over time.

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#255

Post by Evbn »

ihsw wrote: post #228
Turing_Machine wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might work until the class action gets filed.

You've waived your rights to a class action file suit by purchasing an Amazon product or using an Amazon service.

Which is a legal impossibility that sadly has not been fully tested yet.

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#256

Post by smacktoward »

pi18n wrote: post #185
beedogs wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It amazes me how the concept of "non-scarce" goods being a one-for-one substitute for physical items only seems to work in one direction in this brave new world in which we are unfortunately inhabiting, too. If she'd been caught torrenting those same books in the US or a growing list of other countries, she'd face fines and court fees. Her Internet browser could be diverted to "anti-piracy education" sites; perhaps o…

I'm one of the ones to leap out of the woodwork and shout that copying is not theft, so it's only fair that I point out this; torrenting is a massive copyright violation, as you are basically republishing the content. What Amazon did in this case is not against copyright, and the user had no claim to copyright of that work anyway. Make no mistake; I disagree with the humongous damages leveled against torrenters and I…

The user had no copyright claim on that work, but he/she did have a reasonable expectation that a "purchased" good was hers to dispose of as she saw fit after completion of the sale, within the confines of the law. What people are objecting to is Amazon's redefinition of the rights of the seller at the expense of the rights of the buyer.

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#257

Post by Evbn »

chris_wot wrote: post #241
unreal37 wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Telling her privately that her account is associated with a fraudulent account has not caused her any harm, thus its not libeled her. Only if they published it to the world, she could claim her reputation has been harmed.

Actually, it did because she lost all her books and she isn't able to get them back.

The loss of books has nothing to do with the speech act of libel.

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#258

Post by imgabe »

oliwarner wrote: post #94
techsupporter wrote: post #56

Tangentially related, I am getting very, very tired of "customer service" departments using phrases like: "While we are unable to provide detailed information on how we link related accounts, please know that we have reviewed your account on the basis of the information provided and regret to inform you that it will not be reopened." This happens more frequently: Google says this all the time, based on posts here; Am…

Companies have privacy obligations. If they inaccurately link you to a fraudulent user and then tell you all the activity of that fraudulent user, they've probably just broken the law. That's a specific example where it might not be legal but I agree that this is widespread and there are lots of things in the real world where it would be fine to tell you, but they choose not to. In my experience this is to protect in…

If they are not confident enough that they've accurately linked you to a fraudulent user to tell you the details of that account, they should not feel confident enough to CLOSE YOUR ACCOUNT on that basis.

Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM

#260

Post by jiggy2011 »

hobbes wrote: post #160
rmc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless a judge decides that due to the manner in which it's sold, that it constitutes a sale under the law, and hence all your normal "I've bought a thing" rights come into play. Anything in the T&Cs that takes away the rights the law gives is hence null and invalid.

Agreed. But, we've yet to establish if indeed they do take away rights that the law provides. I would have thought HN would have uncovered such a law by now. A cursory glance at the Wikipedia article on DRM suggests the law is favourable torwards DRM and all that that entails.

It probably wouldn't be a "law" per se in terms of statutes, it would be down to case law. In other words we won't know until this (or something very similar) goes to court.

It's not so much about DRM per se but rather about what rights you can expect when "buying" an e-book.

Post reply on HN