This is something that's always in the back of mind.
Yes the Kindle is awesome, but how hard is it for a bookstore to come to your house and repossess a book?
Outlawed by Amazon DRM
351–360 of 494 posts
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#352Earlier quoted context omitted.
It absolutely should be illegal to delete files from a device that is currently rented or owned by another party unless they give explicit permission. It should be wire fraud, just like hacking a server and forcing it to act in a way the owner does not desire.
The problem is that Kindle users probably did give explicit permission (for some definition of explicit permission). I'm sure there's a clause in the ToS that allows Amazon to delete content that you've purchased. I'm not the type to sound the drum saying that piracy isn't theft, but here it seems like it's trying to go both ways. It's property if you "steal" it and it isn't property if you've bought it. Part of the…
The problem is that Kindle users probably did give explicit permission (for some definition of explicit permission). I'm sure there's a clause in the ToS that allows Amazon to delete content that you've purchased.
This is why there has to be clear law that says that one owns the digital content on ones ebook reader. Courts might interpret that you already do, but clear statue law would be very clarifiying.
Remember if the law says one thing, and you agree (via a T&C or contract) to another, then the law wins. You cannot sign something away if the law says you cannot sign the thing away. No country is a pure libertarian utopia.
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#353Earlier quoted context omitted.
"seeding a pile of ebooks isn't really something for which any valid defense can usually be given" How come? If you seed a pile of ebooks (let's assume it's a very big pile that contains a good chunk of books humanity considers important) than you're helping our culture spread. It is in fact very important for books to be massively copied in order to survive future catastrophes: whatever they come in form of nuclear…
Yes, I'm sure "stockpiling against the need to re-create society" is much higher on most people's list than "I don't want to pay for the things I want".
I don't care about that. For most of that books, their authors are already dead; most of them are also forgotten to the point of being out-of-print.
Your comment will be justified if the stockpile was smaller and more hit-driven, but 20G is a nice cultural pill you will have difficulty arguing about.
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#354Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're understating the benefits and missing a few key ones. First, the instant purchase ability is extremely important. It means that books gain some measure of equality with other forms of media (the internet, movies/tv, music). With a Kindle I can read whatever book I want whenever I want, which means that I read many more books than I used to. Second, the mobility advantage isn't slight at all, especially for peo…
I'm understating the benefits because I highly doubt the average person is reading anywhere close to what you are reading. Personally, I'm not exactly sure where you are finding the time to read this much, but I digress. A vast majority of people read one book at a time. Two max. Given this, the idea that there is a massive benefit in portability is completely overstated - few people (outside of students) were carryi…
Even for people who don't read as much as I do, I think those benefits exist and that you're understating them. (Especially because my Kindle is part of the reason I read so much, not just the means by which I do it.) A Kindle is still a lot more portable than even a paperback. (I can comfortably fit it in a jacket pocket.) It's still way more convenient to be able to buy books whenever you want than to have to plan a trip to the bookstore or library. It's still a lot nicer of a reading experience than most paperbacks.
Yes, I do spend a lot of money on books every year. When you look at it in context though, that number really isn't crazy, even for something I don't end up owning. Cable TV, a Netflix account, Spotify, and going to the movies once a month are all in the same order of magnitude for similar-ish kinds of things, and you don't end up owning anything as a result of any of those, either. Reading--even when you're buying every book you read--is actually a surprisingly cost-effective means of entertainment.
And there's definitely not a 100% premium compared to me buying the physical books--that's a very silly way to do cost analysis. A sizable percentage of the actual benefit of reading a book is reading it for the first time, so losing access to it later doesn't completely devalue your purchase. Even if you were to factor in the chance of losing access to the books you've spent money on later (which is entirely reasonable), you should also be factoring in the chance that you don't ever lose access to your books. Anecdotally, events like this seem extremely uncommon, and so treating them like a certainty doesn't make much sense.
As I said, I'm not trying to defend Kindle (or any other) DRM here. I'm trying to argue against the idea that people who own and use ebook readers are idiots.
(And as for how I read so much...20 minutes both ways on the subway plus another 3-4 hours throughout the week is easily a book a week for me--I read pretty quickly--and I occasionally just sit down and decide to spend an evening reading instead of doing something else.)
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#355Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps I'm not reading this correctly, but it looks to me like Amazon does not hold the right to delete books in the case of a ToS abuse, which means that they shouldn't have deleted the books in this case.
I would have thought the same. Perhaps the 'Amazon' that is bound under this settlement is a different corporate entity as the 'Amazon' in this case. E.g. Amazon.com vs. Amazon.co.uk
As a tangent, I hate how trademark law protects the "Amazon" brand for book sellers, but there are 2 different companies. I think that if the company wants to keep a trademark, then any company that uses/is licenced that trademark is legally counted as the same company. This way Joe Soap, upon seeing the "Amazon" trademark, is not able to screwed around by corporate structure shenanigans. Or Amazon Ltd. have the choice of giving up the trademark.
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#356Tangentially 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…
I've come to the conclusion that a big problem with todays extremely anonymized and impersonal customer service of large corporations is that there is nobody (or at least nobody with the competence to do anything), that you can shout at till things get fixed... Essentially, as a customer one is often limited to submitting requests through web forms and receiving boilerplate answers (if at all) that lead nowhere if th…
Conversely, the internet has made the plight of the screwed-over-little-guy much easier to publicise, making results more likely.
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#357I am curious: could a story like this happen in the United States? According to my reading of the legal case (I am not a lawyer, but it would be interesting if any of you are could comment - grellas, perhaps) regarding Amazon's remote deletion of Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm , the settlement involving that case appears to protect what happened in this story from happening to users in the United States. Of cou…
A co-worker of mine (US) lost his kindle library about a year ago. Amazon closed his account and refused to tell him why. It took several tech blogs and newspapers phoning up Amazon with the story for him to get it back.
In other words, he got restitution because of articles like this one. He no longer buys kindle books.
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#358I 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 purcha…
One data point: I work on the Kindle and have a pretty good understanding of how the device works. I'm not aware of how to wipe the device remotely. It's possible to revoke licenses for DRM content, but I have no idea how to remove all books. I can't explain how to reproduce what the blog describes happened. If this person did in fact purchase DRM content and Amazon revoked it, then at a minimum the person should get…
at a minimum the person should get a refund. There are ways that happens automatically (because it's the right thing for the customer -- Amazon doesn't want to take sides in the bigger debate)
Minor quibble. Yes deleting & giving a refund is more moral than deleting without a refund. But deleting someone else's property without their consent is very unethical, and is not "the right thing to do".
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#359Earlier quoted context omitted.
"seeding a pile of ebooks isn't really something for which any valid defense can usually be given" How come? If you seed a pile of ebooks (let's assume it's a very big pile that contains a good chunk of books humanity considers important) than you're helping our culture spread. It is in fact very important for books to be massively copied in order to survive future catastrophes: whatever they come in form of nuclear…
Don't forget to share Hollywood blockbusters and AAA video games. The rebel alliance is counting on your support.
Hollywood blockbusters and AAA video games are disgusting as a concept; most are also lousy and boring as an implementation of that concept.
So good news, I'm not pirating blockbusters, but bad news for you, I'm not paying for these either.
No food for your thick sarcasm.
What do I do? I support independent efforts while torrenting oldies and classics. You can say that latter is piracy, but I don't care and their authors don't care either, and I could not care less about "rights holders".
Re: Outlawed by Amazon DRM
#360Could 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…
> Legal or not, this looks, smells, and feels so obviously wrong, it ought to be illegal.
How many people, if they'd known this could happen, would have bought a Kindle in the first place? I suspect many would not. Digital rights activists need to educate the public that DRM = you have no rights.