Amazon remotely deletes "1984" from Kindles

[DVD Guy ATL]

I think I'll stick with my physical media, thank you very much!!


http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/amazon-kindle-1984/

[GatorDeb]

Short version:

Mobilereference sold 1984 while it's still copyrighted and not being the copyright holders.

The copyright holders contacted Amazon.

Amazon deleted the copies off the Kindles and refunded the purchase price to customers.

[awil1026]

Short version:

Mobilereference sold 1984 while it's still copyrighted and not being the copyright holders.

The copyright holders contacted Amazon.

Amazon deleted the copies off the Kindles and refunded the purchase price to customers.
That's not what the article says. It cites publisher change of heart.

[GatorDeb]

Don't believe everything you read ;)

Thread at mobileread.com (not to be confused with MobileReference):

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51167

[awil1026]

Don't believe everything you read ;)

Thread at mobileread.com (not to be confused with MobileReference):

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51167
I don't.

I thought you were summarizing the article and simply made a mistake (since you didn't cite anything at the time).

[Tommy Ceez]

So what

After purchase a party changing its mind and taking away YOUR PROPERTY (I dont give a fuck what the EULA says) is bullshit

That does it

No kindle for me ever

[awil1026]

So what

After purchase a party changing its mind and taking away YOUR PROPERTY (I dont give a fuck what the EULA says) is bullshit

That does it

No kindle for me ever
I believe the solution should have been:

-Removal of the item from the kindle store by amazon.
-Customers (who purchased it in good-faith) get to keep product.
-Retainer of IP rights sues and recovers profits from existing sales and damages.

EDIT: That's assuming that what Deb said is true. Sorry, Deb, I don't feel like looking through the thread you linked to. :)

[Tommy Ceez]

I believe the solution should have been:

-Removal of the item from the kindle store by amazon.
-Customers (who purchased it in good-faith) get to keep product.
-Retainer of IP rights sues and recovers profits from existing sales and damages.

As in


every other retail fuck up ever?

[GatorDeb]

Someone at Mobileread gave this example:

You have a Lexus. Someone steals it. That person sells it to a third person. The police find the third person. Who does the car belong to? YOU.

I see nothing wrong with it since they refunded the purchase price.

[LurkerDan]

Someone at Mobileread gave this example:

You have a Lexus. Someone steals it. That person sells it to a third person. The police find the third person. Who does the car belong to? YOU.

I see nothing wrong with it since they refunded the purchase price.

That example is inapposite. The property that is owned in your example is tangible, the car. The property owned in the case of 1984 is a right, the right to publish it. The right was violated; that doesn't mean tangible property was stolen.

[GatorDeb]

inapposite
Wow, that's actually a word! :) Learn something new every day.

[Groucho]

Wow, this is like something out of George Orwell novel.

[smashthesymbols]

Wow, this is like something out of George Orwell novel.
It really is just like Animal Farm isn't it?

[Alan Smithee]

That's why I don't go for any sort of downloadable media- suppose all movies were only available through download, and then Disney kept doing the moratorium thing with their classics, putting them out just for a few months every few years. That would mean they'd be able to stop you from being able to watch those movies while they were off the market, whereas now as long as you have an old copy you can watch it forever.

[Ranger]

Man, I hate these kinds of legal issues. It's annoying like when a song was on a tv show, and tv show makes it to dvd, then song owner complains. Neither side budges and DVDs are taken off shelf while fans moan.

[solipsta]

That's kind of scary that they can remotely delete a book from your device.

[sracer]

Someone at Mobileread gave this example:

You have a Lexus. Someone steals it. That person sells it to a third person. The police find the third person. Who does the car belong to? YOU.

I see nothing wrong with it since they refunded the purchase price.
Soul-less corporations need more customers like you.

[Sean O'Hara]

Someone at Mobileread gave this example:

You have a Lexus. Someone steals it. That person sells it to a third person. The police find the third person. Who does the car belong to? YOU.

I see nothing wrong with it since they refunded the purchase price.

Accepting, arguendo, this line of reasoning, you're papering over the real issue here -- Amazon has the power to reach into your Kindle and delete books that you purchased. Even if you think Amazon's actions were justified in this particular case, do you trust them to never use this power in a way you disagree with? Do you trust that if they ever decide the ebook business isn't taking off, that the books you "purchased" won't suddenly disappear? That's pretty much what happened the last time they tried it -- they shut down the authorization servers, so you couldn't transfer your ebooks to a new device.

[D.Pham00]

Short version:

Mobilereference sold 1984 while it's still copyrighted and not being the copyright holders.

The copyright holders contacted Amazon.

Amazon deleted the copies off the Kindles and refunded the purchase price to customers.

so, did you get refunded, twice, one for each kindle?

[kuroiinu]

This is going to stop me from getting a Kindle, until at least I can store my purchases on my own medium, far away from grabby vendors.

[andicus]

The Kindle never appealed to me to begin with. I'd much rather have a physical copy of any medium. This type of story just reaffirms that.

Imagine how pissed you'd be if you were most of the way through the book, and then it got taken away.

[kuroiinu]

What appealed to me was the convenience and ease of book browsing and purchase. I wasn't aware of the ease of losing your books :)

[Living Dead]

So you can't back up a Kindle on another source?

[Suprmallet]

I think it would be great if everyone who had a Kindle returned theirs as defective with the reason listed as "Woke up this morning and my copies of 1984 and Animal Farm were gone!" I think Amazon would get the message pretty quick.

But yes, the idea that Amazon can at any time remove books you've purchased (even if they give a refund) is enough for me to never buy a Kindle. I do have the Kindle app on my iPhone, but only use it for free books.

[msdmoney]

What a huge mistake by Amazon. People are already hesitant to switch to digital media (music is the only format that has really started to transition), and actions like this just solidify that reluctance. Now they have an even bigger fight ahead because people will always cite this as an example.

Looks like they have said this won't happen again

http://mashable.com/2009/07/17/amazon-remote-delete/

[kuroiinu]

So you can't back up a Kindle on another source?
As far as I know, no. You can store a back-up online with them and download if you need, but I don't think you can save a copy on your PC or other device.

EDIT: I'm not sure about this anymore. There is a lot of conflicting information in the Kindle reviews. Some say you can back up on your PC and other aticles say you cannot. I'm totally confused.

[Giantrobo]

Yet another reason not to jump on "Pay and Download" bandwagon. It's never really yours.

Stuff like this is one of the many reasons I'm slow to buy Digital Content like full games and other content on XBOX LIVE.

[Living Dead]

Personally, I would never buy a device I couldn't back up on another source. That alone would keep me away from the kindle.

[OldDude]

The article originally referenced had links to more Kindle articles on its page. One of those also troubled me. Kindle charges you a fee to load a document you own (perhaps one you authored) to your Kindle, and is raising that fee.

I would assume I could transfer files I own between my PC and a "reader" directly without involving them. Apparently not.

[mcfly]

It really is just like Animal Farm isn't it?You know, I don't usually "get" book jokes.. but that was pretty funny. :lol:

[kuroiinu]

The article originally referenced had links to more Kindle articles on its page. One of those also troubled me. Kindle charges you a fee to load a document you own (perhaps one you authored) to your Kindle, and is raising that fee.

I believe that is when you want to send a personal document wirelessly to your Kindle so you access it later. To me that's a bit like sending a text message to your cell phone, and if there is a fee, I find that reasonable.

I don't know if there is a way you can do the same via a USB cable without wireless transfer and without charge.

[GatorDeb]

If you hook up you Kindle to the PC, it shows as an external hard drive and you can transfer stuff back and forth easily.

The fee is if you want to use Whispernet. You can have Kindle convert and email to your @free.kindle com email that then goes to your regular email account and you can transfer it then to your Kindle through USB.

[solipsta]

I'm intrigued by the idea of ebooks, but Kindle has never really appealed to me. This solidifies that I won't get it.

[Jason]

It's interesting to note that 1984 is available for free in its entirety online.

http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt

Of course, that site isn't in the US, and another site claims 1984 is also in the public domain in Canada.

[pedagogue]

I thought it was stored locall......f' that!

[Duran]

The article originally referenced had links to more Kindle articles on its page. One of those also troubled me. Kindle charges you a fee to load a document you own (perhaps one you authored) to your Kindle, and is raising that fee.

I would assume I could transfer files I own between my PC and a "reader" directly without involving them. Apparently not.

The fee only applies if you wish to convert and transfer a file over the wireless network, and does not apply to web browsing (and file downloading over the web) or purchasing books. If you do not wish to pay the fee, you can convert and transfer to your kindle via USB for free. The fee is just so they can recoup some of the wireless costs, that's all.

[drmoze]

I believe the solution should have been:

-Removal of the item from the kindle store by amazon.
-Customers (who purchased it in good-faith) get to keep product.
-Retainer of IP rights sues and recovers profits from existing sales and damages.

EDIT: That's assuming that what Deb said is true. Sorry, Deb, I don't feel like looking through the thread you linked to. :)

No, that is NOT how it "should" be. The copies sold were unauthorized. I see no harm in removing the copies (in effect, an automatic 'recall') and refunding the purchase price paid by those affected. Nobody is out any money, and the rights to the work are protected. There are no losers in this scenario, and it's completely fair.

OTOH, I have a Sony Reader, and copies of all my book files backed up in 2 locations. No online 'whispernet,' fees, or battery-eating wireless to deal with. My Reader goes 3 weeks+ without needing a charge. And all my content is backed up locally.

Besides, I can borrow a TON of ebooks thru my local library. I don't need no stinkin' Amazon, and I don't even have to pay to read new books.

[Thor Simpson]

Sweet, next can they remove Alexander from my memory and refund the 3 hours of my life?

[Tracer Bullet]

No, that is NOT how it "should" be. The copies sold were unauthorized. I see no harm in removing the copies (in effect, an automatic 'recall') and refunding the purchase price paid by those affected. Nobody is out any money, and the rights to the work are protected. There are no losers in this scenario, and it's completely fair.

OTOH, I have a Sony Reader, and copies of all my book files backed up in 2 locations. No online 'whispernet,' fees, or battery-eating wireless to deal with. My Reader goes 3 weeks+ without needing a charge. And all my content is backed up locally.

Besides, I can borrow a TON of ebooks thru my local library. I don't need no stinkin' Amazon, and I don't even have to pay to read new books.

Really? It's "completely fair"? What about a publisher losing the rights to publish something and asking Barnes & Noble to come into your house, take the book, and leave some cash in it's place?

[Duran]

OTOH, I have a Sony Reader, and copies of all my book files backed up in 2 locations. No online 'whispernet,' fees, or battery-eating wireless to deal with. My Reader goes 3 weeks+ without needing a charge. And all my content is backed up locally.

Besides, I can borrow a TON of ebooks thru my local library. I don't need no stinkin' Amazon, and I don't even have to pay to read new books.

I'm happy that you're satisfied with your Sony reader, but I am able to do the same with my Kindle. You can turn wireless off and use it just like a reader. Sony has better PDF support, but it's not hard to convert.

[Tracer Bullet]

:lol: Way to kill the thread

[Just Lurking]

Slightly OT - If they have the ability to completely remove material, I assume that they would have the ability to alter content that has been downloaded. Good - they could correct factual information for reference material. Bad - unpopular or politically incorrect material could be changed over time to match current opinion.

[meglet]

Slightly OT - If they have the ability to completely remove material, I assume that they would have the ability to alter content that has been downloaded. Good - they could correct factual information for reference material. Bad - unpopular or politically incorrect material could be changed over time to match current opinion.

Based on their track record with the LOTR trilogy, I don't see this happening much, if at all. Apparently when LOTR was originally released in Kindle version, there were numerous typos and other issues which have since been corrected. Last time I checked, the only solution for the original purchasers is to call Customer Service, have the original order refunded, and re-purchase the book to get the corrected version. They may have fixed this in the month or so since I checked, though.

[Heat]

Someone at Mobileread gave this example:

You have a Lexus. Someone steals it. That person sells it to a third person. The police find the third person. Who does the car belong to? YOU...
It depends on what state you are in. If you are in Iowa and buy a stolen vehicle in good faith, it is your car.

Tell that to the know-it-all at Mobilread.

It's interesting to note that 1984 is available for free in its entirety online...
And available for free for a period of two weeks or so from your local library.

[darkside]

This at least points out the truth of digital content. You don't own anything. You are paying full price to rent it.

[mgbfan]

Another who will stick with good ole' paper and binding. I don't get the need to make reading so needlessly expensive and complicated. I'm no technophobe, but this tech always just seemed unnecessary.

[orangecrush]

It depends on what state you are in. If you are in Iowa and buy a stolen vehicle in good faith, it is your car.

Tell that to the know-it-all at Mobilread.


And available for free for a period of two weeks or so from your local library.What happens to the person who had their car stolen? I live very close to Iowa and am looking for a "new" car ;)

[Jay G.]

This at least points out the truth of digital content. You don't own anything. You are paying full price to rent it.
It's not "digital content" that's the issue, it's DRM.

I own the mp3s that I've purchased from various different sites. I can make as many copies of them as I want, burn them to as many CDs as I want, transfer them to as many devices as I want, etc. None of the various places I purchased them at have the ability to remove those mp3s from my possession.

The few DRM-ed iTunes songs I purchased over the years though, I did not fully own. I was subject to the rules and whims of Apple's DRM policy as to how many CD copies I could make, what devices I could transfer them to, which and how many PCs could play them, etc. And ultimately, the continued ability to play those tracks was subject to iTunes staying in business, as users of MSN Music and Yahoo Music discovered.

Now that iTunes has switched to offering DRM-free music, I can now own the tracks purchased from there.

The Kindle's combination of DRM and Whipsernet, allowing it to be always connected, is what allowed Amazon to erase the book from the Kindles that purchased it. If someone transfers a DRM-free copy of 1984 to their Kindle, Amazon has no ability to delete that copy.

[slop101]

Reviews for the Kindle on Amazon have been pouring in this last day, almost all of them 1-star reviews, totally bashing the product over this issue and that fact that it can even happen.

Right or wrong, this is really going to hurt Amazon's product.
I'm sure they're stock's taken a big hit over this too.

[WallyOPD]

Reviews for the Kindle on Amazon have been pouring in this last day, almost all of them 1-star reviews, totally bashing the product over this issue and that fact that it can even happen.

Right or wrong, this is really going to hurt Amazon's product.
I'm sure they're stock's taken a big hit over this too.

That's a fairly easy fact to look up. It's up about $2 since this news broke.

[slop101]

Well, that's the opposite of what I would've expected - but I guess after all, the Kindles' just a small part of Amazon.

[Nick Danger]

Slightly OT - If they have the ability to completely remove material, I assume that they would have the ability to alter content that has been downloaded. Good - they could correct factual information for reference material. Bad - unpopular or politically incorrect material could be changed over time to match current opinion.

Mark Twain wrote a famous book about the adventures of Huckleberry Finn and ******, er, African Slave Jim.

I once read a story about a man whose job was to edit the newspaper archives so that past news stories were changed over time to match current political opinion. ;)

[jdodd]

I once read a story about a man whose job was to edit the newspaper archives so that past news stories were changed over time to match current political opinion. ;)

Not on your Kindle, you didn't.

[clappj]

Amazon should have just gone all Fahrenheit 451, and burned up everyone's Kindles remotely!

[madcougar]

How ironic that 1984 is the book that was removed from people's gizmos by the all seeing Amazon...

[Ropes Pierre]

My god, it's like that one book where pigs took over the world, locked people away in rooms for reeducation and hired dogs to burn books at 98 degrees Fahrenheit, or apparently now delete them from Kindles.

It is no wonder they took their name from a soulless thing like a rainforest.

[Heat]

Let's say a printer made paperback copies of 1984 without paying royalties and sold them. If they got caught, there is no way that people would be knocking on the doors of the individuals trying to get the paperback books back.

What Amazon did was incredibly stupid. Not to mention it brings to light the fact that they can do whatever the heck they want with anything you buy and if you don't like it - tough luck. Whay anybody would buy one of these Kindles is beyond me. Why [a certain DVD Talk poster] would buy two while $65,000 in debt is way beyond my comprehension.

Anyway, there was a point to my bringing this topic back up - Amazon is offering some more "goodies" to people who had their versions of 1984 stolen from them:

Amazon still apologizing for 1984/Kindle mess

Fri Sep 4, 2009 1:01PM EDT

Amazon still hasn't moved past its embarrasingly painful decision to delete copies of 1984 and other books from customers' Kindle e-book readers.

Even after CEO Jeff Bezos formally apologized, the company is taking more steps to make amends for the "stupid" and "thoughtless" (his words) mistake it made this July. To wit: Amazon is now offering affected customers the chance to re-download any books summarily deleted from Kindles during that time -- along with any annotations made to the books. If you don't want the book back, you can instead choose to receive an Amazon.com gift certificate or a check for 30 bucks. Not bad for a book that cost about a dollar.

Facing a lawsuit over the deletion of the books and a mountain of outrage from consumers crying that Amazon radically overstepped its bounds with its actions, the company has been backpedaling ever since the incident occured.

However, per the Wall Street Journal, a company spokesperson says the $30 refund/free copy offer has nothing to do with the pending lawsuit.

If you were affected by the deletion of a book, you should have received an email from Amazon with the above options outlined. If not, write to kindle-response@amazon.com to ask for your remedy directly.

So... now has Amazon gone far enough to regain your trust and to convince you that ebooks are not some ephemeral gossamer subject to the whims of corporate overlords? If nothing else, Amazon has surely learned a powerful lesson in how small mistakes can quickly snowball into problems with enormous consequences. My only wish is that the company released Kindle and ebook sales numbers, so we could actually quantify the damage done instead of having to guess at it.

[Abob Teff]

So, this Kindle-thing is like DIVX for books? It kind of makes the name appropriate ... the first thing I thought of was "kindling" which is also used to start fires.

[Brent L]

I'm not involved in this, I don't own a Kindle and don't plan to, but the story angers and intrigues me.

Even though they have offered to "make up" for what they did, could people still go through with lawsuits in order to attempt to permanently prevent something like this from happening again?